
THE 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



©1^ inp5ri# f n. 

ShelfÈî.â.55C) 

^ 



UNITEB STATES T)F AMERICA 



û 





L. STONE, 



COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

-OR- 

Key to Scripture. 



AN EXPLANATION OF 



THE OLD MD NE¥ TESTAMENTS, 



ACCORDING TO 



REISON. NATURE MJ) EXISTUTG MCTS. 



DISPENSING WITH 



Miracles, Mystery and Blind Faith — Uniting the Old 
AND New Testaments without Abrogating any- 

^ THING FROM THEM A RePLY TO R.OBERT 

/ /^^ G. Ingersoll, Bishop Colenso, 

^^ ^ . Paine's Age of Reason, 

3-^ 



AND A REFUTATION OF 



Prof, Sjintli's Tivelve Lectures ahout the Pentateuch, 



BY Jf L. 'STONE, 

CHICAGO. <^o 



\^ ^ ^JXl9irhf 



READ AND CRITICISE. 



/' 






^^ 



S'îO 



• Si 



Enlerod cccording to A£t of Congress October 5th, 1881, 

By J. L. STONE, 

CHICAGO. 
' ALL EIGHTS EESEEVED. 






TO THE KEADEE. 



We do not know of a subject about which so much 
has been written as that of Biblical Theology. The 
belief of the public is that to write a book now in 
explanation of the Bible, would be as useless as the 
pouring of a measure of water into the Mississippi 
for the purpose of raîsing a large océan sailing vessel 
greatly overloaded, that had been run into its mouth 
and stranded. 

The boat cannot float in a river^ and the first thing 
to be done for the purpose of raising her, is to relieve 
her from her freight and then, if possible, bring her 
back to the wide and bottomless océan again. 

The Bible is the boat that carries ail the religious 
freight; she was built to float in the boundless waters 
of the océan of knowledge, wherein she floated pros- 
perously up to the time the first Christian church 
became her captain. Not only did that captain over- 
load her with his heavy and cumbersome freight and 
run her into the river of faith, whose bottom is of 
quick-sand, but ail the freight of each and every 
sectarian church that came into existence during that 



IV 

length of time was loaded upon that already over- 
loaded vessel without relieving hei of the freight that 
was placed upon her, which was already more than she 
could carry; hence she is now embeded in the quick- 
sands of that unnavigable stream; and we, for the 
purpose of raising and saving the vessel, hâve relieved 
her from ail her burdens by making each and every 
consignor take care of his own freight, and hâve 
brought the vessel back into the océan of knowledge, 
wherein she has floated thousands of years, and hâve 
loaded her with unity, for which she was originally 
built. 

One thing is certain, and that is: if God gave the 
Bible to men, about which we hâve no doubt, He gave 
it to them that they may be benefited by it; then the 
Bible ought and must unité men and not disunite them 
and itself, as the sectarian freight made her do. It 
must, first of ail, unité and agrée with itself. Secondly. 
It must unité and agrée with reason, with common- 
sense and with the laws of nature; and after it unités 
ail thèse, it will unité ail men in brotherly love, and 
it will unité them with their Creator, the God that gave 
the Bible to men for the purpose that they shall be 
united, even as He is a Unit. The following is the bill 
of freight with which we hâve reloaded the vessel, 
and we say and prove that it is the same freight with 
which she was loaded before the first church knew 
anything about her. 



AN EXPLANATION 

And reason why Solomon wrote his " Songs " in the 
manner and style that he did, and made use of the 
words that the members of one sect use when they 
express their affections and love to the members of the 
other sect, is because religion is as natural as the love 
and affection of one sect is for the other. Religion 
appertains to the soûl — the will to the heart; both the soûl 
and the will are imperceptible to the eye; we judge and 
speak of both accordingto their acts; hence Solomon, in 
speaking of the soûl, made use of the words and the 
manner in which the words are used in speaking of the 
wûU. 



SYNOPTICAL INDEX. 



CIIAPTER I.. Page i 

Reformed Judaism. 

If the Bible is a book as men hâve, and the majority of men do believe, 
namely: that it is a covenant or contract between God and man, 
to which contract God is one p^rty and man the other, then man, 
the one party, cannot change the contract according to his désire or 
convenience, neither to suit his business, without first obtaining the 
consent of the other party to the contract, Godj and if the Bible 
is not a contract between God and man, and ail that is said in the 
Bible as to the covenant between God and man is not true and 
thèse reformed Doctors know it, why then hâve they not the honesty of 
an honest IngersoU to say so? We think they know enough not to kill 
the goose that lays the golden (officiai) egg. 

CHAPTERII Page 9 

BiBLICAL POLYGAMY AND SlAVERY (Ingersoll.) 

Answer. The Israélite, as well as ail the nations that hâve existed, 
were habituated and hâve practiced both polygamy and slavery long 
before the Bible was given to man, and for the Bible to stop thèse two 
habituai and semi-natural institutions, would be unnatural. God doth 
not change his laws of nature; if He would change them once He 
would change them ail the time, and that would be compelling man to do 
what God desires him; and God will not do that, because He would 
destroy His own acts. He gave to man reason, which is the production 
of the soûl, and the latter is a part of God Himself; He created 
man in His own image; he is free; hence man must to a certain extent 
be free. Reason governs man's freedom and will. As soon as man 
makes his will subject to reason he will do no wrong, and compulsive 
force is not needed to prevent such a man from doing wrong. 



VII 

CHAPTER III Page 15 

Studying the Bible for sectarian and professional purposes is the cause 
of infidelity. 

CHAPTER IV Page 19 

Voltaire says that it is unknown to chemistry, how to reduce gold to a 
powder so that it might be mixed with water and drank ; hence the Bible 
is not true, because it says that Moseshad doneso, (with the golden calf.) 
Each and every druggist now knows how to reduce gold to a lîuid that 
can be mixed with water. 

CHAPTER V Page 20 

Paine says that ISIoses could not hâve been the author of the 
book of Genesis, because the thiry-first verse of the thirty-sixth 
chapter of that book says. "Thèse are the kings that reigned in the 
land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israël." 
Paine says that the first king that reigned over Israël was Saul; 
hence the book of Genesis could not hâve been written before the time 
of Saul, which was about fîve hundred years after the death of Moses. 
We prove beyond a doubt that the man who says that the verse in ques- 
tion refer to Saul or to any of the kings that reigned in Israël, does 
not know the différence betv/een the words over and in. Saul never did 
reign over Israël he reigned in, and the same is the case with ail the kings 
of Israël. They hâve ail reigned in Israël and were t?/" Israël. The phrase 
"reigned over'''' is only applied to a ruler tliat is not one of the nation 
that he rules and is not in the land of the nation that he ruies. 
Pharaoh was the first king that ruled over Israël, and there certainly 
never was a man after the time of Moses that did or could know 
better what took place in the time of Moses and Pharaoh, than 
Moses did. 

CHAPTER VI Page 27 

The Number of the Israélites in the Time of the Exodus. 

Bishop Colenso says that the increase of the seventy who came with 
Jacob into Egypt, was at the average rate of four and one-half children 
to each father and mother, and reasons that the Israélites increased at 
the same ratio during the time they were in Egypt ; then their number 
at the time of the exodus could hâve been no more than about five thous- 
and, including men, women and children; but figures say and prove that if 
the Israélites increased at the rate of four and one-half to each father and 
mother during the time in question, they could hâve numbered into 



VIII 



billions at the time of the exodus; but that conclusion is based upon the 
false figures that the Bisho-p gave; hence it is not correct. The true 
solution of that question is given in a subséquent chapter. 

CHAPTER VII Page 40 

Can THE Création be the Word of God as Paine says It is? 
What is Biblical Religion? 

Man had no other word of God than the Création up to the time that 
he had accepted the Bible as the word of God. 

Man had, for about four or five thousand years, studied and read the 
Création. What had he learned in it about God? Pie did not learn 
enough in it to know that it was a création; it made him believe that 
every créature was a creator and a god; hence he served and worshiped 
every tame brute that he knew of upon the face of the earth, and every 
planet and star that he could see in the skies; hence the création cannot 
serve for the word of God. 

The world had used it for that purpose five times as long a time as it 
uses the Bible for that same purpose. The posterity of those who used 
the Création for the word of God, are ashamed of their ancestors, 
because they hâve used the création for that purpose. It is true, the 
création magnifies its Creator, the same as a picture does lead our minds 
to contemplate and admire its painter. But to take the création for its 
Creator is as laughable as to take the picture for the painter that painted 
it. It is the Bible that taught us the différence between the création 
and the Creator. Without the Bible man did not even know that it 
was a création. That which Paine called the "Age of Reason," 
proves itself to be very unreasonable and nonsensical. The "Bible is the 
only school wherein the idea of a création is or ever was taught; and 
Biblical religions are the only teachers who hâve ever taught that 
branch of knowledge. Each and every dénomination is a method by 
which that class or dénomination can best acquire the much desired 
knowledge, namely: the knowledge of his Creator. Each dogma helps 
to accomplish that purpose. 

CHAPTER VIII Page 48 

The Biblical Account of Création. 

The Bible cannot be held responsible for the idea that men hâve had 
and what some hâve vet, namely: that the Bible says: "God halh only 
created the one heaven and the one earth." The Bible does not say so. 
The Ilebrew text of the Bible cannot even be construed to mean or say 
that God hath only created the heaven and the earth. The very first word 
of it, the word"Be-rash-ith, " not only does not permit such a construction 



IX 

but forcibly tells by implication, that it means the heaven and the earth are 
but part of a séries of créatures that were created at the same time. The 
Word "Be-rashith" means fîrst, or with the first, and not "in the beginning." 
The Word first necessarily means the first or the principal one of a séries; 
and the whole Biblical account of création is in accordance with 
what science demonstrates to us. Science is to the Bible the same as a 
light is to a dark room, in which a valuable diamond is lost, it cannot be 
found without the light; science is the light, by it the Biblical truth can 
be found and demonstrated. The Bible was and had to be translated 
in the manner and style that it is, because that was the prevaiiling belief 
and idea of those for whose benefit it was translated. The purpose for 
which the Bible was translated was to make man know that what he 
beholds is a création, and that should lead him to search for the 
Creator. To tell him that there are numberless planets or worlds that 
are inhabited by some créatures, but are invisible to us, would naturally 
lead him to believe that there are numberless creators, and that would 
destroy the very purpose for which the Bible was given to man, and the 
purpose for which it was translated from the Hebrew language; hence 
it was originally written in an apparent inexpressive manner, and was 
subsequently translated as it is. 

CHAPTERIX Page 69 

The Development of the Earth and Her Relative Position 
TO THE Sun and other Planets. 

Men, who call themselves scientists and critics, question the truthfulness 
of the Biblical account of création by asking: "how could the earth 
produce végétation on the third day of création as (they say) the Bible 
says it did, without the heat of the sun, which was not created until the 
fourth day of création?" Our answer to them is: they may be scientists 
but they are not critics, for if they are or had ever been, they could per- 
ceive that the Bible says that the earth did not produce her végétation 
until she obtained her aid from the sun. It is true it says it in such a 
way that they are not scientific enough to perceive and understand; but 
that cannot be made to be the fault of the Bible nor of its author. 

CHAPTER X Page 75 

The Bible and the Science of Astronomy. 

Paine, and others like him, say "that ail the scientific learning that 
now exists came to us from the Greeks, and the word of God is in the 
création and in the science that création teaches." 

Our answer is: If it is true that ail the science that now exists came to 
us from the Greeks, then that proves that neither the création nor the 



sciences that are in it, are, nor can be, made to be the word of God. 
The Greeks hâve used both the création and science, they knew nothing 
of the Bible. What were their ideas and knovvledge of God? With ail 
the science, but without the scientific knowledge of the Bible, which 
they did not bave, they could not even ascertain that what they beheld 
was a création; and the knowledge that they had of God, makes to-day, 
th,eir posterity ashamed of their ancestors. While the Jews, from 
whom the science of Biblical learning came to us, and from whom 
Paine takes away ail knowledge of the sciences that are in the 
création, they had the same knowledge about God that their posterity and 
the civilized nations of the world hâve to-day, and their posterity are the 
only ones that are now, and alvvays hâve been, proud of their ancestors. 
But Aristotle, the father of the scientific and leamed men of the Greeks, 
dénies what Paine and the like of him say about "scientific learn- 
ing." He says (and tells it as a very wonderful thing to his pupils) that 
he and a great many other philosophical persons, hâve learned more 
from a Jew, whom they met at the sea coast, than he could learn from 
them. The learning and knowledge that the Greeks had about the 
solar System, and which was the knowledge that the world had in the 
days of Paine, was that it consisted of six planets including the 
earth; but the Jew, Maimonide, who is now dead more than seven 
hundred years, said, (and what he said came down to us,) that every one 
knows that the solar System consists of nine planets, but he insisted that it 
cannot consist of less than eighteen planets besides their moons, and that 
there are strong reasons to believe that it has more than eighteen. Ile 
looked upon it through the Biblical télescope, not with the science that 
are in the création and came to us from the Greeks. 

CHAPTERXI Page 8i 

Language and Man. 

"Language," says Paine, "cannot be the vehicle by which God 
would convey Ilis will to man, because, it is changeable;" hence he says 
the will of God is in the création, because it does not change. Our 
reply is: language is the product of the soûl and the seul is a part of 
God, and there is no power that is greater than God; hence God hath 
made use of His own power to convey His will unto man who acts 
through reason, or the gift of God to man. 

CHAPTER XII Page 86 

The Angel that Balaam's Ass saw — How the Beastcameto 
Speak axd What Kind of an Animal it was. 

The ass was no other than Balaam's own body. His mind was the 



XI 



an^cl; the power that the minci pos?esses to desti'oy the will was the 
sword ; his will and reason were the two servants that were with him. 



CIIArTER XIII Page 98 

The Biblical Account of the Création of Man. 

The first man and woman were created together in one body, then they 
were separated and one part made into a female. God said: "Let us 
make man" to the four éléments, fire, wind, water and earth, the same 
as lie said: "Let the earth bring forth living créatures." lie, God, 
created the soûl, which is not of any of the four éléments, and is of no 
materials whatever; hence it is a part of God. 

CHAPTER XIV Page 107 

The Garden of Eden — The Serpent — The Eating of the Tree 
OF Knowledge, and the Tree of Life. 

The word "Eden" means time, the word "east or eastward" is trans- 
lated from the Ilebrew word "Mekedem," which means, from before, 
The power that gives reason to the mind, the soûl, was created "before 
time." Man was placed in it, means that man is subject to and governed 
by reason. It is called garden^ because, it is closely fenced and produces 
idéal flowers and fruit. Four streams came out of the garden; means 
the four sides of the world on earth, east, west, north and south, which 
man's mind can contemplate upon and penetrate through , and thèse 
four streams water or irrigate the mind, that is, man can only penetrate 
and control the earth. The knowledge that man has, appertaining to 
the body, is represented by the ti"ee of knowledge, and the knowledge 
that appertains to the souI is represented by the tree of life. The 
word serpent is translated from the same Hebrew word that is used to 
designate enchantment and convincing the jnclination of man's will to 
look for the desires and pleasures of his body, through which he neglects 
his soûl, is represented by the serpent. 

The instability of man's mind and uncertainty of spiritual life, is 
represented by the flaming and turning sword that watches the way to 
the tree of life. 



CHAPTER XV , Page 117 

WhERE the GA.RDEN OF EdEN IS — WhAT THE SeRPENT IS, AND THE 

HiDDEN Meaxings Thereof. 



XII 

cil APTER XVI Page 127 

Cain — Abel — Enos — Enoch and Noah. 

Thèse names and a good many more Biblical names, are not the original 
names by which the persons that thèse names designate were known and 
called at the time that they had existed. Cain represents a mère 
purchasable chattle; he was a tiller of the ground like an ox, without 
reason in him. Abel, means "vain," or a man that has some reason in 
him, but appropriâtes it to serve his body, the ground. He takes it to 
Cain (the body) into the field. Cain (the body) kills the vain man's 
soûl; vi^hich is done to-day and has been done during ail the time that 
man is upon the face of the earth. Seth was born in the image of his father, 
Adam; hence he was and is, like "Adam" (earth.) There are four 
names in the Hebrew language to designate man. Each name serves as 
an adjective. Adam is the lowest degree of man and includes everything 
that is in the shape of man. The second degree of man is Enos, he was 
the son of Seth. P2noch means training. He walked with God ; that is» 
he walked with reason, "and he was not for the Lord took him;" reason 
took him, and he was not what the rest of men were. He, Enoch, repres- 
ents that class of men that are designated by the word "Gever," or one that 
dépends upon God, and belongs to the third class of men. "Ish" désig- 
nâtes the fourth class of men. Noah was the first man to whom the 
title of *'Ish" was giveu; and that name is also applied to angels. 
When man reaches that degree he can go no turther, he has to rest. 
The word Noah, means rest. When he reached the position of "Ish," 
he had to rest and was then called Noah (rest.) 

CH APTER XVII , Page 136 

The Flood of Noah. 

The flood was brought upon the world, because man became wicked 
and for the purpose of destroying the wicked men; hence the flood was 
only in that part af the world that was inhabited by men, and that was 
only in a small portion of Asia. According to Colenso's calculation of 
the number of the Israélites at the time of the exodus, there could not 
hâve been a million of men in the world in the days of Noah. There 
were but ten générations from Adam until Noah, and the génération of 
Adam consisted of but two, Adam and Eve. Noah is of the tenth 
génération and is called llysuthrus, and was the tenth king of Chaldea* 

CHAPTER XVIII Page 145 

The Sons of God took for Wives the Daughters of Men. 
The sons of God were they that had reason in them ; the daughters of 
man (Adam) were the daughters of those that were mère shapes of men, 
Adams. ("Alohim" means might, power.) 



XIII 



CHAPTER XIX Page 167 

Why Abraham Left the Place of His Nativity and why IIe 

TOLD HIS WlFE TO SAY THAT ShE WAS HIS SiSTER. 

Nimrod had thrown Abraham into the fire, because he advocated the 
service of the only one God, and spoke against the worship of images, 
but he came out of the fire unhurt. Nimrod thought that the wonderfui 
delivery of the fire would be the success of Abraham's theory, he there- 
fore. banished him from the land, and his father and his family went 
with him; he made many converts while he was in Haran, and subse- 
quently -vrent to Egypt for the same purpose, namely : to teach the 
knowledge that he had of God to the Egyptians. When he came near 
to Egypt he began to study to find out a method, and perceived that his 
wife will, on accoun-t of her beauty, be the cause that will bring him in 
contact with the learned men of Egypt; hence he told her to say that 
she was his sister. If it had been known that she was his wife she would 
not hâve been taken into the house of Pharaoh, through which the latter 
obtained the knowledge of God, and that gave Abraham a chance to 
discourse with the learned men of Egypt, and bring the knowledge of 
God to mankind, for which purpose God hath chosen Abraham and his 
seed, the covenant tliat God made with Abraham, and why his seed 
vvere to be afflicted for four hundred years. 

CHAPTER XX Page 179 

Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez, and grandsons of Judah and 
Tamar, who, in point of time, were to Judah, equal to great grandsons; 
that is, if Tamar had a child from her first husband. Er and Pharez 
had been the son of that child, he, Pharez, would hâve been the grand- 
son of Judah; Hezron and Hamul, the sons of the former, would hav^e 
been the great grandsons of Judah, and could hâve been born, as far as 
time and circumstances were concerned, at least four or five years before 
the time that they were born, as the grandsons of Judah. Could they, 
Hezron and Hamul, hâve been born within twenty-one years from the 
time of Judah's marriage, as Bishop Colenso, for the purpose of showing 
that the Bible is not true, or for the purpose of exposing his stupidity 
and ignorance, says, or makes the Bible say, it was. 

That is equal to having two great grandchildren within sixteen years 
after the marriage of the great grand father from an issue of 
that marriage. The absurdity of the Bishop's assumption upon which 
he based his conclusion is so great, and the circumstances narrated 
in the Bible, which each and ail prove the absurdity of the Bishop; his 
ignorance, or worse, his falsehoods, are so numerous that we cannot 
State them hère, and therefore, referto the chapter in question. 



XIV 

Answer. It took Jacob about eighty years to raise his family of 
seventy, not forty-five as the Bishop says. From the time of Jacob's 
marriage until the time that he came into Egypt is about eighty 
years, not forty-five as Colenso says. Judah could hâve been about 
twice as old as Joseph vas at the time the former came into Egypt with 
his father, and in that case the number of the Israélites at the time of 
the exodus, even at the Bishop's false ratio, could hâve been only about 
sixteen millions, not billions, as is shown in the sixth chapter, where the 
calculation is wholly made upon Colenso's absurd basis. 

CHAPTER XXI Page 196 

Number of the First Born Compared to the Whole Number of 
THE Israélites when thiy were Counted in the Désert. 

Had every mother in Israël had to hâve between forty and fifty child- 
ren on an average to make the Israélites be as many as the Bible says 
there were, as Colenso and Ingersoll say? Could and can there be no 
more mothers in a nation than there were or are first born, as thèse 
champions of falsehood and humbug, say? 

Can there not be five, six and even more mothers to one first born, as 
we say, circumstances prove and figures demonstrate that it can? 

CHAPTER XXII Page 210. 

The true and proper answer to the questions about the number of the 
Israélites at the time of the exodus, based upon biblical basis and math- 
ematical calculations, not mixed with anything that Colenso says, nor 
upon figures that he uses; "or, answer not a fool according to his folly." 

CHAPTER XXIII Page 222, 

NONSENSICAL AND GrOUNDLESS QUESTIONS AsKED BY COLENSO 

Against the Bible. 

Why did the Israélites not fight with the Egyptians when the latter 
overtook them at the Red Sea? Where did they get arms to fight with 
the Amalekites? Where did the Israélites get shittim wood to build the 
tabernacle in the désert? Where did they get sheep for the Passover 
sacrifice the first year they were in the désert? and the like of it? 

CHAPTER XXIV Page 238. 

Col. R. g. Ingersoll Himself^ and his own Thoughts. 

"Banish me from F>den when you will, but first let me eat of the fruit of 
the tree of knowledge, " or a review of his bookcalled "The Gods."^ The 
Bible is the first charter of liberty that was granted to men ! In it, was 



XV 

the first idea of a majority rule conveyed to men. The first popular 
élection that was ever held was in the désert by Sinai. Lecture of Rev. 
Chas. Voysey, of London, on the Bible and science; and of Prof. F. 
Adler, on the personality of God, or '■'■Conscientious Intelligence of the 
HeariJ*^ The question of David and Bathsheba, nothing but ignorance 
can and does accuse David of murder and adultery. 

CHAPTERXXV Page 271 

The Tabernacle that Moses Built — The Idea of a House for 
God to Dwell in — What Moses saw on the Mount, and what 
THE Tabernacle was Built for and what it Resembled. 

CHAPTER XXVI Page 280 

The Purpose of the Tabernacle and of the Animal Sacrifices. 
Did God Désire Sacrifces — Did IIe Intend that it should 
Endure for all Time— Did Moses or an y of the Prophets 
Intend that it should. 

The very name from which the word altar is translated, désignâtes 
that it was intended to wean theni oflf from sacrificing. A comparison 
between the nianner, or order of the account of the création and the 
building of the Tabernacle. The eighth lecture of Prof. W. R. Smith 
about sacrifices. The meaning of "Sweet savor unto the Lord." The 
command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. The land of '■'■Moriah,^^ 
where and what it îs. 

CHAPTER XXVII.... Page 316 

Prophecy and Inspiration, what it was and what the Un- 

TAUGHT BECAME HABITUATED TO BELIEVE IT WAS — PrOPHET 

Jonah's Running Away from Before THE Lord — The Ship in 
WHicH Jonah was to go to "Tarsish — The Fish that Swallow- 
ed Him. 

CHAPTER XXVIII Page 3:6 

Miracles and Mysteries — (Paine's A. O. R.) 

The océan of miracles was created during the dark âges, when the 
stream of reason ran out from man's mind, then, and not before, was 
the unnatural stream of miracles created, so that the Bible may float imder 
the fiag of faith until the fountain of reason shall again break out and 
send its stream into the minds of men. The author of the "Duties of 
Heart" (Houvas Halvovous,) a book that was not written for the ignor- 



XVI 

ant, says: "Faith without knowledge is like an ass carrying goods, he does 
not know the value of it." 

Everytliing that is contrary to the known laws of nature is called a 
miracle. God does not change the laws of nature. Everything that the 
Bible says that took place, which are not in accordance with the known 
laws of nature, and which are called miracles, such as the manna and the 
like of it, took place through a spécial cause of nature that was created 
at the time of the création for that spécial purpose. 

CHAPTER XXIX Page 345. 

HOW AND WHY MOSES WrOTE OF HiMSELF, THAT HE, "MOSES, WAS 

Very Meek, Above all Men that were Upon THE Face of 

THE Earth. {Paine'' s ''A. O. ^.") 

The city of Dan, built by the tribe of that name, and the place of 
that same name, where Abraham overtook the captors of his nephew, 
Lot. (Same author.) 

How Moses did know the time that the Israélites ate manna. (Same 
author.) 

CHAPTER XXX Page 356. 

The Death and Grave of Mqses. 

CHAPTER XXXI Page 364. 

The Sun and Moon Standing Still in the time of Joshua. 

CHAPTER XXXII Page 371. 

Prof. W. Robertson Smith's Blunders about Saul, David, and 
Jonathan; or the Life of his Twelve Lectures — About the 
Bible and his Greek Hebrew. 
The knowledge that he shows himself to possess of history and his 

mastership of the Hebrew language, as shown by the translation he 

made of the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the eighth chapter of First 

Kings. 

CHAPTER XXXIII Page 405. 

Jehoram, King of Israël, and Jehoram, Kinc; of Judah. {Paine' s 
'■''Age of Reason.^^ 

Did the former begin to reign during the second year of the reign of 
the latter, or did the latter begin to reign during the fifth year of the 
reign of the former, in which the biblical history apparently contradicts 
itself ? 



XVII 



CHAPTER XXXIV Page 409. 

BiBLiCAL Taxation or Tithes, Compared with our Présent 
Mode of Taxation. 

CHAPTER XXXV Page 414, 

The Indestructibility of Israël — The Tree that was thrown 

INTO THE BiTTER WaTER AT "MaRAH" — ThE "StATUTE AND 

Ordinance" that were made for Israël at "Marah." — What 
WAS Proved to Israël at that Place. 

CHAPTER XXXVI Page 426. 

The Jew and the New Testament — The Virgin — The Immacu- 

late Conception and the Trinity. 

Ail thèse are not new to the Jew, v/ho understands what the heifer of 
three years old, the goat of three years old, the ram of three years 
old designate, which Abraham eut apart in the middle, in his vision, and 
the turtie-dove and the young pigeon — the great darkness and the lamp 
that Abraham beheld in the same vision. 



31 



PREFACE. 



:o: 



"IF THE FAIREST OF WOMEN IS UNKNOWN 
TO THEE, WALK IN THE FOOT-PATHS OF 
THE SHEEP, AND FEED THY KIDS WHERE 
THE HERDERS HAVE RESTED." 



Of ail the books that constitute the book called Bible, 
the book called " Solomon's Songs," is the one that is 
most abused; less understood; and is the one that contains 
the finest ideas concealed in piles of allegorical phrases. 
So much so, that " Maimonide," in the préface of his 
" Moureh Nebuchim," which was written seven hundred 
years ago, quotes what the authors of the " Talmud," 
which was written about two thousand years ago, and the 
lecturers of that time hâve said. 

They compare the law of God to a well, in a place where 
water is very scarce, and the water of the well is very 
healthy and cold, and a lot of men around it desiring the 
water thereof, but cannot reach it, because it is so deep. 

At last one wise man cornes, and collects ail the strings, 
threads and rags he can, and ties one to another, twists it 
together, and makes a rope long and strong enoiigh to 



XX 

reach and draw up the much desired water from out of 
the well. So, they say, had Solomon done: he connected 
one comparison to another, and one thing to another, until 
it reached and brought out the real meaning of what is said 
by the authors of the books of the Law and the Prophets. 

And it is well known, for the Prophets themselves say, 
that what they said was only comparisons and proveibs 
" And hâve used similitudes by the ministry of the Proph- 
" ets." Hosea, chapter 12, 10. " Son of man put forth a 
" iiiDDLE and speak a parable unto the house of Israël." 
Ezekiel 17, 2. " They say, of me, doth he not speak par- 
" ables." Ezekiel 20, 49. 

" To understand a proverb and a comparison, the 
" words of the wise and their riddles." Prov. 1,6. 

The English version of the book called Solomon's Songs, 
is not only a sad mistranslation from the Hebrew language, 
but the very name of it is a misnomer. The word soxg 
is translated from the Hebrew word " shir," which means 
POEM. The word " zemmer " is used in Hebrew for the 
word song. The proper name of that book ought to be 
" The Poems of Solomon." 

The 8th verse of the ist chapter of that book, which 
we hâve placed at the head of our préface, is given as it 
reads in the Hebrew Bible. In the English Bible the 
noun " women," is in the second person; in Hebrew, 
she is of the third person. In the Hebrew Bible, the 

author speaks to the reader of or about the ûiirest of 
women. She is of the third person; and in the English 
Bible she is of the second person, because she is spoken to. 
It reads: " If thou knowest not, O, thou fairest of women," 
and that destroys its entire meaning. 

The reason why the book in question is most abused, 
and scofFed at by those who know little or nothing of its 
meaning, is because the author of it uses language, and, in 



XXI 

fact, the whole book is written in the style and in phrases 
used by the maie sex to express their affection and love 
to the members of the other sex. We believe it is neces- 
sary and proper that we shall hère give an explanation 
and reason why it is so, before we make any use of the 
verse we place at the head of our préface. 

First. Ail the féminine nouns, both proper and common, 
as well as their pronouns, contained in the book in ques- 
tion, imply religious wisdom, knowledge and understanding^ 
and thèse nouns are in the Hebrew, as w^ell as in the Eng- 
lish language, spoken of in the féminine gender. 

Secondly. The cause that makes mankind seek and em- 
brace religion, is as natural as the cause that makes one 
sex désire, seek, love and embrace the other sex. 

There is a time during the life of each human being, 
that nature entices him and her to seek and love one of 
the other sex, unless it is one in whom nature is defective. 

We know this from practice, observation and history. 
And we know that during the time that one is under the 
influence of nature, to unité with the other sex, that his 
mind is wholly and constantly occupied w^ith that subjectj 
so much so that he even dreams of it. And we know 
that as soon as one obtains the object of its natural désire^ 
that is, it obtains the one it has chosen for its life compan- 
ion, that he becomes content and enjoys the bliss of his 
married life, stops talking and thinking about any of the 
rest of the members of the opposite sex. 

And he that tortures nature, by refusing to accept or 
sélect the object that nature induces him to accept or sélect,^ 
finds fault with each and every one that nature points out 
to him, and continues to do so until nature forsakes him„ 
becomes an habituai fault-finder with, and talker about 
the other sex. 

And he continues to do so until he gets old, friendless> 



XXll 

and without strength; then he perceives the folly that he 
has committed by not selecting his life-long helpmate com- 
panion when nature was inducing him to do so. He 
acknowledges then, that his unenviable solitude is his pun- 
ishment for his violation of the laws of nature. 

And just as nature works through the machinery of the 
body, that the latter shall accomplish and fulfiU its duties 
of the laws of nature, and punishes the body for its viola- 
tion of the same, so it works through the mind, which is 
the machinery of the soûl, that it shall accomplish its obli- 
gations to the laws of nature appertaining to the soûl, for 
which language has adopted the word religion, as the name 
of the duties appertaining to the soûl. 

It makes no différence how one has been educated, or 
what religions training he has received, there is a time 
during the time of his life that nature compels the mind to 
sélect a code of laws, for the soûl to fulfîll, which language 
calls religion. 

He that yields to the enticement of nature, and binds his 
soûl to some brandi of religion the same as he binds his 
body to his life-companion of the other sex, he becomes 
contented, and enjoys his religions bliss as he does his 
matrimonial happiness. 

And he whose soûl is indiffèrent, and yields not to the 
enticement of nature, either on account of the obstinacy of 
his will, which we are told (Gen. 6, 7), is evil from his 
youth, or because the machinery of his soûl (his mind) is 
defective. Whatever the cause of his obstinacy may be, 
nature at last forsakes him, and he becomes an habituai 
fault-fînder with and talker against religion. 

History tells us, and we call upon each and every one 
of our readers to examine himself and every one that is 
around him, and see whether it is not now, as history tells 
us it has been, that is, we think little or nothing of God 



XXlll 

while we are prospérons and in good health ; but when we 
are in trouble, bodily pain, and especially when we behold 
that death looks upon us, and notifies us that it is ready to 
receive us, then we begin to think about and call upon 
God! 

When we shall corne to speak of the people who hâve de- 
livered to us our religions laws, and of their history and 
doings, which will be the finishing part of our work, we 
wiil then and there fuUy explain what we now allude to, 
and that is this: History tells us that Pharaoh, the King 
of Egypt, knew nothing of God, so long as the hand, or 
the act of God, was not upon him; that is, so long as he 
had no trouble about the thing that God, through his 
angel Moses (every messenger of God is called an angel), 
hath required of him; but as soon as he was in trouble 
about it, his magicians hâve perceived the " Finger of God." 
Not long thereafter he, and not only did he sce God, but 
saw and declared that " God is Righteous, and he, Pha- 
raoh, is wicked." Nevertheless, the obstinacy of his will 
caused him to reject the requirements that God hath 
required of him. 

And at the Red Sea not only did Pharaoh and they 
that were with him see God, but they also saw that God 
fought against them. What they saw, and how they saw, 
we will explain at the proper time and place. 

The Israélites, too, when they were sufFering the pain of 
affliction in Egypt, they cried unto God; and when they 
were so unexpectedly and unnaturally brought across the 
Red Sea, they saw nothing of God in their deliverance, 
but when they looked at the destruction of the Egyptians, 
there they saw the hand of God and hâve believed in Him 
and in his servant Moses; and we call upon our readers 
that they shall testify to themselves if the historical account 
of what took place about four thousand years ago is not 
the same as they expérience the same thing to-day. 



XXIV 

And this is what Job meant when he said: " And 
" where is Wisdom found ? and where is the place of 
" understanding? Man knoweth not the price thereof; 
V neither is it found in the land of the living. Whence, 
" then, cometh wisdom ? And where is the place of under- 
" standing, seeing it is hid from the eyes of the living, 
" and kept from the fowls of the air?" 

Destruction and Death say, *' we hâve heard the famé 
" thereof with our ears; God understandeth the way there- 
*' of, and He knoweth the place thereof." 

And this is what Solomon said: " The beginning of 
Wisdom is the fear of the Lord." 

The bachelor becomes wise, and acknowledges his folly 
when death informs him of wisdom. The unbeliever, when 
he perceives death before him, becomes wise and acknowl- 
edges the power of God as the Egyptians did. They only 
saw the power that was fîghting against them for the 
Israélites; and instead of repenting and acknowledging the 
God whose power they saw, they wanted to escape from 
the God whose power they hâve seen and feared the same 
as the obstinate unbeliever in God. Death compéls him to 
acknowledge the power, but the obstinate will of his heart 
makes him say, that " the grave is the place where one is 
hid from God." 

And being, as we see it is, that the obstinate folly of 
man's own heart is the cause that makes the bachelor vio- 
late the laws of nature appertaining to the body, and the 
unbeliever the laws that the Creator hath designated for 
the soûl to fulfill. And being that the soûl is impercepti- 
ble, and her working incompréhensible by us, and it is 
well known that the mind, which is the machinery of the 
soûl, can not form an opinion about any thing unless it has 
an object to delineate through the eye or the ear. And 
for the purpose of forming an object for the mind to deline- 



XXV 

ate from. Soiomon has used the ^vords that nature makes 
us speak when it entices us to fulfill the laws that the 
Creator of nature hath designated for the body when He 
wrote about and spoke to our minds about the laws that 
the same Creator hath designated for the soûl to perform 
during the time that it remains in the body. And that is 
done for the purpose of forming an object for the mind to 
comprehend. 

In speaking to the mind about the duties of the soûl, 
Soiomon said: 

" If THE FAiREST OF WOMEN, (the duties of the soûl 
called religion) is unknown to thee, walk in the foot- 
PATHS of THE SHEEP. (That is, do as the majority of 
men do. The majority of men don't know the fairest 
of women. They who c'on't understand are in number to 
those who do understand, as the number of sheep to the 
number of herders.) and feed thy kids. ( The 
thoughts of thy mnid, which are as irrestive as kids) by 

THE RESTING PLACES OF THE HERDERS." 

That IS the conclusions of those who hâve studied and 
fed mankind with religions food tiU now. Feed thy mind 
at their conclusions, not at the foot-steps that they or their 
sheep took, is what Soloman says. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The author of this book resolved, when he was about 
fîfteen years old, to take and follow Solomon's advice. For 
the last thirty-five years he fed his mind at the resting 
PLACES the conclusions of the herders, where the first and 
famous shepherd, Abraham, rested, and bas been at the rest- 
ing places. (Conclusions of most of the herders that hâve 
fed the sheep from the time of Abraham until to-day.) 
Had no other guide or teacher than nature. Came to this 
country from Russia Poland when he was but eleven years 
old, parentless and friendless. And, although he is one of 
Abraham's sheep, he, nevertheless, went to work on a farm 
for a gentleman by the name of Henry Veil, in Duchess 
county, New York. 

And resting then at the resting places of the old shep- 
herds, Abraham and Moses, he had to rest on the seventh 
day of the week, and could and ^vould eat only such food 
as they hâve fed their* sheep with, and that peculiarity of 
his brought him in constant dispute (religions debates) 
with the other sheep of the neighborhood, and their herd- 
ers, for he was his own sheep and herder. The only 
weapon that he then had to fight battles with was the 
Hebrew language, which he then could read but could not 
understand the meaning of what he read. He had no 
other branches of learning. He did not even know the 9 
digits, but while w^alking in the foot-joaths of the sheep he 

xxvi 



xxvu 



worked to obtain some little understanding of the English 
language, and other branches of éducation, and at the same 
time he gathered food for the kids of his mind at the rest- 
ing place of the herders. And when he came to the rest- 
ing place, called in the Hebrew language, " Moureh Neb- 
uchim," teaching the Aberrants, which is about seven 
hundred years far from the présent time. 

The place where the great philosophical herder, Moses, 
the son of Maimon, known by the name of Maimonide, 
the man that had distilled and purified ail the thoughts of 
Aristotle and his predecessors, as well as the thoughts of 
the great m en that succeeded Aristotle, there at that 
shepherd's resting place, he gathered food enough to last his 
soûl for the time that it "will stay in his body. In 1862, 
that was before he reached the last named resting place, 
his friends persuaded him to believe that he had weapons 
and ammunition of war enough to successfully attack the 
late Rev. Dr. Raphall, and destroy the castle that he built 
out of Biblical materials to protect human slavery, which he 
did, and the Republican politicians of California published 
it, and named it "Slavery and the Bible, or; Slavery as 
Seen in its Punishment." 

He subsequently w^rote a reply to Bishop Colenso's 
" Attack upon the Pentateuch," which he was induced to 
do by the late Rev's. Thos. Star King and Eleazer Thomas, 
editor of the " California Christian Advocate," and they 
published it under the name of " A Reply to Bishop Col- 
enso's Attack upon the Pentateuch. By a Hebrew Wood- 
Chopper." 

He also wrote a reply to " Paine's Age of Reason," but 
it was not published, because his friends told him that the 
author of that work was dead, and his mischievous work was 
about the same, and publishing a reply to it would bring it 
to life again; hence it was not published. But being that 



XXVlll 

the same questions that were asked thousands of years oe- 
fore Paine was born, are now again re-echoed by oui* 
esteemed friand, R. G. Ingersoll, and other imperfect minds 
on Biblical subjects. The author thinks that the behef of 
his Christian friends, that the so-called Paine questions will 
be forgotten, proved to be groundless, and thinks so long 
as the Bible is studied for professional purposes, the same 
as one studies law for the purpose of becoming a lawyer» 
and make a living of his profession, so long will infîaelity 
not only live, but will increase. To ask or perceive a ques- 
tion is very easily done, especially when that question is 
raised from what appears on the outside of the thing that 
is brought in question, and the answ^er is locked up in the 
inside thereof, as the Biblical questions and answers are, 

Sectarians study the Bible with a view to prove the per- 
fection of their sect, and the same proof that proves one 
sect perfect proves the other sect to be imperfect. The 
world says: " If the Jews are in the right, the Christians 
must be in the wrong," and it is the same between the 
Catholic and the Protestant, and the same between the 
Unitarian and any other Christian sect. And the sectarian 
strife créâtes querists who not only question the perfection 
of this or that sect, but question the truthfulness of the 
Bible itself! And it is a well established fact, that the less 
understanding one lias about a certain thing, the more ques- 
tionable the thing is to him when he begins to think about 
it. And that is what the poet meant when he said: 

" A little learning is a dangerous thing: 

Drink deep or touch not the Pierian spring." 

The imperfect study of the Bible is the cause that cré- 
âtes unbelievers and scoffers. 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



OR 



KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER I. 



REPLY TO DR. K. KOHLER AND OTHERS OF THAT CLASS. 

For the purpose of demonstrating what "we hâve hereto- 
fore said aboiit studying the Bible, as a profession and for 
sectarian purposes, we qiiote from an article in the Occident 
of August 5th, a weekly religions paper, advocating ^vhat 
is called Reformed Judaism. 

It says: 

" There are a few weighty questions which will sooner 
" or later hâve to be solved by either laymen or the ac- 
" credited ministers of the several congrégations. Among 
" them are: observing of the national Sabbath; the inter- 
" marriage between Jews and non-Jews; the total abroga- 
" tion of the Rabbinical Codes, and the introduction of a 
" more practical ritual for an intelligent Judaism. We hâve 



A COLLECTIOiV OF THOUGHTS, 



" a few Rabbis who are comniitted to siich reforms. Rev. 
" Dr. K. K., of New York, is the oracle for the Sunday 
" Sabbath ; Dr. B. F., of this city, is not adverse to the ab- 
" rogation of admitting non-Jews ïnto our creed without 
" circumcision, while Dr. H., of Philadelphia, would marry 
" an Israélite to a non-Jewish lady without the Rabbinical 
" injunction. And Dr. 1. M. W., of Cincinnati, corrobo- 
" rates ail by saying : ' The law of the land is the law.' " 
And the ^vriter of the article in question concludes by say- 
ing: " The younger générations cannot understand the 
usages and the requirements of the superannuated laws, 
their modem éducation, intercourse with their neighbors; 
their business and social relations are adverse to it." 

The writer of the above named article, which we believe 
is the editor of the Occident, though himself an advocate 
ot the above named changes, is, nevcrtheless, compelled to 
admit that ignorance and business are the causes that make 
the heretofore changes a necessity. 

In the same paper, on the same page, another article 
signed " Soi Disant," wherein the wn-iter attacks Mr. Inger- 
soli for his iattack on the Old Testament, and the writer 
says: " Ingersoll reviles the Jehovah of the Jews," speaking 
as if there v^ere a plurality of Jehovahs, or, as if the Jews 
believe that the Jehovah who created them, is not the one 
that hath created the Chnstians and ail other religious 
sects, in his attack upon Christianity, publlshed in the North 
American Review of August, '8i. But mstead of answer- 
ing, or attempting to answer anything that Ingersoll said 
in the attack in question, he simply asserts that Mr. In- 
gersol is ignorant and is not fit to criticise the history of 
the Jews, nor the Bible; dénies that the Bible sanctions 
polygamy, and charges and attacks Mr. Ingersoll's Repub- 
lican party for sustaining polygamy m Utah, and, at last, 
prides himself of the sanctity of the Jewish women. The 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



article makes us believe that it was written by one that bas 
lectured in reply to Ingersoll's lecture on " The Mistakes 
of Moses," which lecture was printed and sold on the 
streets tbe same as the lecture of Ingersoll. However, the 
contents of the article and the contents of the lecture in 
reply to Ingersoll, are the same, and answer the same pur- 
pose : it shows the ignorance of the author, créâtes sectarian 
animosity and gives ground for infidelity. 

We are no prophet, nor son of a propiiet, nevertheless 
we venture to predîct that, if Mr. Ingersoll, or any other 
lecturer, or writer on infidelity, did, or ever will see the 
two articles in the Occident, which we bave quoted, will 
prove by them that the Jews don't believe that the Bible 
is a book that God gave to them. By the one written by 
the editor, he will show that the Jews hâve changed the 
book, or explained it so as to suit their business and their 
social relations with their neighbors; and by the one writ- 
ten by " Soi Disant " he will prove that, though Ingersoll 
reviles Soi Disant, and everything that belongs to his sect, 
nevertheless, the only answer that Soi Disant makes to the 
insuit is the same that B. made to A. when the latter said 
the former was a liar, and B. instead of disproving what 
A. said, he (B.) simply said to A. : " You are a bigger ." 

And masmuch as our undertaking is to answer questions 
asked by infidels, and explain the causes which produce 
infîdelism, it, therefore, becomes a part of our purpose and 
duty to accept the articles m question as a part of infîdel- 
ism, and answer and explain the cause thereof. 

A religions newspaper is the mouth-piece of the teachers of 
the religions brandi that the newspaper represents. The edi- 
tor is supposed to know the motives and ability of those for 
whom he speaks. He says: "The génération does not 
understand the Bible and the Rabbinical laws " which are 



A COLLECTION OF TPTOUGHTS, 



inséparable froiii eachother, and ^Ne are inclinée! to believe 
tbat even Mr. IngersoU bas in bim enough religious faitb 
to bebeve wbat tbe editor said about tbeir biblical under- 
standnig; and, we believe from wbat we know ourselves, 
tbat tbe editor told tbe triitb ; consequently we don't pro- 
pose to debate tbese questions witb tbem on tbeological 
g-rounds or on tbeological pomts; and benig tbat we know 
tbat tbey bave soine very good lawyers ^vbo belong to 
tbeir sects, we tberefore propose to cbange tbese questions 
into légal form and debate tbem from a légal standpoint. 

Suppose tbe government of a certain country made a 
contract witb a citizen of anotber countr}- wberein tbe gov- 
ernment was tbe j^arty of tbe first part and tbe citizen was 
tbe party of tbe second part. Tbe service tbat tbe partv 
of tbe second part was to perform was, say, to carry tbe mail 
for tbe party of tbe first part for a great number of years, 
and it is specified and agreed in tbe contract, tbat tbe party 
of tbe second part, bis successors and assignées, and eacb and 
every one tbat be, tbey or either of tbem, employ to do 
tbe work for tbe party of tbe first part, sball be dressed m 
a certam uniform, and carry a certain sign upon tbeir bodies, 
eacb and every one sball sign tbe original contract, and on 
certain named days notbing else sball be donc by tbose vvbo 
are engaged upon tbe work of tbe party of tbe first part 
tban to attend to tbe work specified in tbe contract. 

But tlie successors of tbe party of tbe second part bave 
refused to sign tbe contract to weav tbe uniform and sign 
on tbeir bodies, and bave changed tbe days tbat is desig- 
nated m tbe contract, to appropriate tbe wbole of said days 
to tbe work of tbe party of tbe first part, by substituting 
otber days for it, and tbe only excuse tbat tliey can give 
for it is, it was injurions to tbeir private business, and it 
was not m accordance witb tbe doings of tbeir neigbbors. 
Are tbey by lavv cntitled to tbe pavment according to tbe 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



contract for the work that they hâve clone not according to 
contract, and the contract sets forth a forfeiture and dam- 
ages if anything be donc not according to contract, and the 
party of tlie first part claims and proves tliat it sustained 
great damages because the work was not donc according to 
the contract? 

Let Dr. K. K. ask the lawyers in New York that belong 
to his sect, and Dr. B. F., those in Chicago that belong 
to his sect, and we are certain that their opinions on 
the question will be unanimous, that the party of the 
second part can recover nothing of the party of the 
first part for the work that tlie former had done for the 
latter, and the hitter, the party of the first part, is entitled 
to a judgement for damages agamst the party of the second 
part. 

And in case the lawyers, or any part of them, should 
décide the case otherwise, then there will be a thousand 
lawyers to one who will say that the lawyer who says that the 
second party can,by law, recover for the work that it has done 
for the first party, has no more knowledge of the law, or 
explanisthe law with no more sincerity than the Doctors in 
question hâve of the biblical laws and the sincerity they 
exhibit m giving their explanation of said laws. 

The Bible is either a contract whereof God is the party 
of the fîrst part to the contract, and man the party of the 
second part to it, as man has, 'till now believed, and as the 
majority of men still believe, and as such the Rev. Doc- 
tors in question, if they know anythmg at ail, they of 
necessity must know that one party to a contract can not 
change or alter the contract without the consent of the 
other party to that contract, and if they, the Doctors, hâve 
by their supjDOsed superior knowledge of the contract, 
(Bible) found out that the whole contract, and the idea that 
God is a party to it, is false, then why hâve they not got 



A COLLECTION OF TJIOL'GHTS, 



the sincerity of an Ingersoll, or iiny other hoiiest infidel, to 
so déclare it to the 2:)ublic? Why do they want to change 
the bibHcal Sabbath to Sunday, known as the Christian 
Sabbath, the fîrst day of the week? 

The Christians admit that Saturday is the right biblical 
Sabbath, but they observe Sunday instead of Saturday in 
comerr.oration of tlie résurrection of their Savior on that 
day. And if Dr. Kohler is satisfied with the Christian 
theory of salvation, why don't he announce it to his con- 
grégation the same as he announced in his reply to Inger- 
soll's lecture on the *' Mistakes of Moses," that the Book 
of Genesis is a mère Pandoras box? And Dr. B. Felsen- 
thal the same reasons, if he has any, that gives him the 
right to employ non-Israelites to do the work of God under 
the contract that Abraham, the father and founder of Israël, 
made with God, which contract spécifies, that whoever 
does any work under or by virtue of the said contract, 
must sign the contract the same as Abraham did. Why 
does he allow helpless children but eight days old to be 
circumcised, or sign the contract? The same reason that 
he has to employ non-Israelites to carry out the contract, 
must appl}^ to Israélites. And i'f he found out that God is 
no party to the contract, and that the rite of circumcision 
is a custom borrowed from some Pagan mythology, then 
why has he not the honestv to decla^'e so, and give the 
reason upon which he bases his conclusion ? And if thèse 
Rev, Doctors act under the old- adage, not to '' kill the 
goose that lays the golden egg,^'' then they prove the défi- 
nition given by Mr. T. Paine of the word " infidel." Mr. 
Paine says: he is an infidel who says he believes a thing 
and don't believe it, which the language of the world calls 
hypocrac}'. 

Dr. I. M. Wise acquiesces in cvcrything that the here- 
tofore nanicd Doctors sav. Savs the cditor of the sectarian 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



paper. " By saying ' Dinai D'Malchuso Dinai,' the lavv of 
the land is the law." 

And Dr. Wise, if he knows anything, must certainly know 
that the phrase, " the law of the land is the law," don't 
mean that the law of the land abrogates the divine law, 
but simply means that the law of the land must be obeyed 
the same as the law of God. And thanks to God and the 
Constitution of the United States, the laws of the land that 
we are in do not compel us to abrogate the laws ot God, 
but on the contrary, it guarantees religions freedom to each 
and every one of the citizens of our land. And this is their 
trouble. Equality is a bitter piU for them to swallow. A 
no-Rabbi shall hâve the right to know as much, or more, 
than he who occupies a Rabbinical chair, not being able 
to sway the Rabbinical power in America as to obeying 
what the Rabbi says, because the laymen say that the law 
is old enough for them to know it as well as they w^ho 
occupy the Rabbinical chair. Hence, they want to do 
away with the old law and make their own code of laws 
for their sect, of which the Doctors themselves, through 
their mouth-piece, say they are ignorant of the old laws, 
and those who don't belong to their sects will say to them 
nothing more about their laws. The real motto of Judaism is 
to let every sect alone so long as it is sincère m its doing, 
and so long as it lets Judaism alone, which we will fully 
explain and prove when we come to speak upon the pur- 
pose of Judaism and upon ail religions based upon bib- 
lical grounds. 

We believe that the author of the 56th chapter of Isaiah 
foretold the présent times, and referred to a certain class of 
religions teachers. We only quote the loth and iith verses: 
" His watchmen are blind; they are ail ignorant; they are 
"dumb; they cannot talk; (they dare not speak for fear 
" they will expose their motives,) sleeping, lying down, 



A COLT.ECTION CE THOUGHTS, 



" loving slumber. Yea, they are greedy, which can never 
" hâve enoiigh, and thev are shepherds that cannot iiiidei- 
" stand. They ail look to their own way» Eyery one for 
" his own g^iin, from his quarter, (congrégation,) which 
" swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of 
" the God of Israël, but not in truth and righteousness. 
" They stay themselves opon the God of Israël." — Chapter 

48. 

No wonder that that class dislike the Bible, and talk Ox 
making their own code of lav^^s. 

The lyth verse of the 49th chapter of Isaiah is mistrans- 
lated. The Hebrew text reads: " Thy children hâve niade 
haste; thy destroyers and they that make the waste came 
ont of thee." The Doctors we speak of, and the like of 
them, are our destroyers — they make us waste. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER II. 

REPLY TO INGERSOLL ON THE QUESTIONS OF BIBLICAL 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

It is a well knovvn fact, that the thing of which a man 
is deprived and lias the least, that he wants it the most, 
and nothing else will satisfy him except that which he 
wants; more especially, if he was deprived of the thing in 
question by some other inan; and more so, if the thing in 
question is one that the laws of nature compel him to hâve 
and use it. If a man is hungry, nothing but food will satisfy 
him; if he is thirsty, gold and silver is almost worthless to 
hnn, and nothing; but water will satisfy him; if he is 
deprived of his freedom, which is also natural, his désire to 
enslave others, especially those who enslaved him, is as 
great as his désire has been to regam his own freedoin. It 
makes no différence whether God himself wrote the laws 
of the Bible, or God told Moses, and dictated to him, as 
some people believe, or Moses w^rote it according to 
his own uuderstanding, they were ail the same intended 
for human beings to carry out, obey and perform them ; 
and human nature was then what it is now. It was then, 
what it is now, iinpossible for mankind to continue 
doing a thing that is unnatural; and habit has as strong an 
influence on mankind as nature has. Slavery seemed as 
natural to our brethren, who were born and raised in our 
late slave states, as freedom is to us who are born, raised, 
and educated to freedom. The Israélites were themselves 
slaves for a lone time. Let Mr. Ins^ersoU ask our freed* 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



men whether they would be satisfied with their freedoni if 
their late masters, and we, as well as every nation on the 
face of the earth, would hold slaves and they, the freed- 
men, should by law be prohibited to enjoy the same priv- 
ilèges. We see with what a tenacious courage they demand 
and use ail the rights that other freemen are entitled to; 
and we not only applaud them for their tenacity, but we 
encourage them to it; we demand it for them. We say 
unless they hâve and enjoy ail the rights that other free- 
men hâve, their freedom is but a mockery and a sham 
That is what the Israélites would hâve told M oses, if he 
had told them, or if he had said God told them, " You are 
now free; but you must hâve no slaves, like your late 
masters had, and ail the rest of the nations upon the face 
of the earth,'' they would hâve paid less respect. Nay, a 
great deal less than the abolitionists of the north hâve paid 
to the late fugitive slave law, or would hâve paid to that 
unnatural law if the power of the government of the 
United States had not sustained and enforced that law. 

Polygamy was also practiced at that time ail through 
the then known face of the earth. We see from the prac- 
tice of our Mormon cousins, what a winning institution it 
is. We see how hard it is to wean them from the habit. 
What will become of those who are alrcady in it? To déclare 
that polygamy is illigitimate, is a légal déclaration that ail 
who are born in polygamy, are of an illigitimate birth, and 
this is something which, for the last twenty 3^ears, the gov- 
ernment of the United vStates could not take upon itself to 
déclare. Polygamy is as hard a nut for our government to 
crack as slavery has been. It took the government from 
the time it came into existence, until the time that the 
slave-chain was broken, by the actions of those who tried 
to strengthen the chain of sla/ery. If the slave owners had 
not started the war, slavery would hâve existed to-day, and 
the government would yet be studyîng, and the people 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. II 

fighting among themselves, how to get rid of it. And it is the 
same to-day with polygamy, The government is studying 
how to make the pol3^gaiTiists themselves abandon polygamy. 
If Moses had told the Israélites that polygamy was illigiti- 
mate, they would hâve said, then according to this, \ve are 
ail of an illigitimate origin, becaiise we are of the grand 
and grcat-grand children of Jacob, who had four wives. 
How much respect they would hâve paid to that law, can 
be easier miagined than explained. Let us now see how 
Moses acted with the questions in which nature fought 
against morality. 

His laws and régulations, in regard to fair female captives 
of war, explains his wisdom as a legislator, his knowledge 
of hunian nature, and his désire of establishing morality 
among his people. 

" VVhen thou goeth forth to war against thy enemies, 
" and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thy 
" hands, and thou hast taken them captives, and seest 
" among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a désire 
" unto lier, you may take her to be thy wife. (Hebrew 
" version.) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine 
" house, and she shall shave her head, and she shall let 
" grow her nails (Hebrew. English, pare her nails), and 
" she shall put the raiment of captivity from ofï her; and 
" she shall remain in thine house and bewail her father and 
*' mother a full month; and after that you may come unto 
" her and be her husband, and she may be your wife. And 
" if it should be that thou hast no delight in her, then 
" thou shalt let her go whither she will; and selling her 
" for money, thou shalt not sell her, nor swap her for 
" merchandise, because thou hast afflicted her." — Deut., 
Chapter 2]. 

It may be said that that law was for the purpose of 
encouraging the institution of polvgamy; but by examining 



13 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the law, it will plainly be perceived that the intention of 
the law was, that he shall never marry her; and the per- 
mission of marrying a female captive was only given as a 
help to subjugate the natural incHnations. 

This law speaks of, and was given for the benefit of a 
soldier in camp. It is well known that a soldier in camp, 
in a foreign country, will do things which he would be 
ashamed of doing if at home among his friends and relatives. 
Suppose Moses had told a soldier that he must not touch a 
beautiful female captive, though nature and circumstances, 
as well as condition, each and ail induce him to do it, 
would he hâve minded the négative command of Moses? 
Most certamly not! No one would believe the soldier if he 
would say that he did obey the law, and he would say to 
hmiself, I would rather be accused and satisfy my natural 
désire, than be accused and torture nature, which is almost 
impossible for any one to do under the circumstances. 

In view of ail thèse, the permission of making her his 
lawful wife is given, which counteracts the inducements of 
nature. No one will attempt to get a thing unlawfully 
which he has in his possession lawfully; the anticipation of 
making her his wife, counteracts the power of présent par- 
ticipation. It changes her condition in his mind from a 
captive to a wife; and it is well known that when one 
enters within the law, he will not go out of the law until 
the purpose for which he entered into the law will be ac- 
complished. In the fîrst place, he could not make her to 
be his wife before he brought her to his house: and whei? 
he is home at his house, he is no longer a soldier in camp. 
Shame, family tie and kindred will counteract natural in- 
ducements, and if that is not enough to make him abstain 
from marrying her, it is enough to make him fulfill the 
law. She is to take ofF her gorgeous dress and put on gar- 
ments of lamentation, which used to be sackcloth and ashes; 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



shave ofF her head, iet her nails grow, aiid for a full month 
bewall her father and niother. How she looked at the end 
of the month is much easier to imagine than to explain. 
If he loved her for her beauty, the more beautiful she 
was when he lirst saw her, the iigher she must hâve been 
at the end of the month; and if he did not marry her then 
at the end of the month, he could not hold her as a slave, 
nor could he, according to that law, sell her, or make mer- 
chandise of her; but had to Iet her go free. It cannot 
reasonably be supposed, that many female captives were 
made wives in Israël under that law. 

Neither can the law of birthright be taken as a law in 
favor of polygamy, for the law itself shows it was against 
polygamy. A man has two wives — one he loves, the other 
he hâtes; the first-born is of the wife that he hâtes; the 
father has not the right to change the birthright from the 
son of the wife that he hâtes to a son of the wife that he 
loves; nor can he deprive him of his two shares of ail that 
his father possesses, to which the iîrst-born son is entitled. 
The father is to be punished by the remorse of his own 
feelings that must arise in his heart from the knowledge 
that the object of his hatred is to hâve two shares of every 
dollar that he makes during each and every day of his life. 
We think it is very reasonable to believe that whoever saw 
his punishment, or knew the feelings of the father's heart, 
would be very apt to hâve but one set of children by hav- 
ing but one wife. 

Let us now see how slavery could hâve existed under the 
biblical laws. In the first place, if the master injured the 
body of a slave, even by breaking out a tooth of the 
slave's mouth, that gave to the slave his freedom. Exodus 
21, 37. 

" And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eve 
" of his maid servant that it perish, he shall let him go 



14 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" free for his eye's sake; or if he sinites ont his man serv- 
" ant's tooth, or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him 
" go free for his tooth's sake." As soon as the servant 
knew, that by the loss of a tooth, he woukl obtain his free- 
dom, he became as obstinate as he coukl make himself to 
bc, so that the master shall strike him and injure his per- 
son by which he would gain his freedom. 

If a slave run ofF from one city to another, or from one 
tribe to another, he w^as not to be delivered back to his 
master. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the serv- 
ant which has escaped from his master unto thee. He shall 
dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he 
shall chose in one of thy gâtes where it liketh him best, 
thou shalt not oppress him." — Deut. 23, 15, 16. 

But be it remembered, that an Israélite or a prosélyte 
coiild not be held in slavery, hence a slave as soon as he 
became a prosélyte he became a freeman. Would we hâve 
had to fîght the late slave war if tliere had been such a 
law, in the United States as it is in the Bible, that one 
Christian shall not hâve another Christian for a slave, and 
give to the slave the right to become a Christian? 

No one could bave had the chance to invent the story of 
Mr. IngersoU's hiding in the hollow of a log,because there 
would not hâve been a slave in the country to fight about. 
The Talmud says: " He who, under the laws of Moses, 
bought for himself a slave bought himself a master." And 
during the time of the second temple, polygamy and 
slavery were so abhorred by the Jews that it jastified Hillel, 
the Righteous, to say: " The increase of wives is the 
increase of polution, and the increase of slaves is the 
increase of theft." The question of the total annihilation 
of men, women and children, which Mr. Ingersoll shoots 
ofF to such advantage, we will discuss when we coma to 
reply to the A. O, R-, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER III. 

STUDYING THE BIBLE FOR PROFESSION AE PUR POSES. 

The authors of the " Talmud," who hâve studied the 
Bible before that book was known to any other nation 
than the Jews, hâve said, in their ethics: " Thou shalt 
" not niake a throne of the law, (the Bible) to decorate 
thyself w^ith it; nor a spade to dig \vith it." And they 
also said (in ethics): '' The sacred meanings of the law — 
" the Bible — are revealed» to him who studies the law for 
" the sake of the law, and for no other purpose, and lie 
" that does so, becomes as an inexhaustible fountain." And 
they practiced what they said. They hâve not taught the 
law to evcry one that wanted it. The pupil had to be of 
middle agc, and satisfy the teacher that he had a mind 
that could thoroughly understand and explain a subject to 
himself, and that he will not make use of w4iat he knows 
of a subject, either in ail or in part, for any purpose of his 
own or which is not for the law itself; and that he is not 
one of those wdio, when they can not find the meaning of 
•i thing, conclude there is no meaning to it. 

Ail the questions that biblical critics, both pro ana con, 
hâve asked and published to the world since print came in 
use, were asked and answered by them thousands of years, 
ago ; but they hâve answered it in such a way that not every 
one can take it and use it for whichever purpose he 
chooses. They hâve only opened the door to the answer 
of each question, and he that desires to know their answer 



i6 



must possess the qualities that they hâve possessed, and 
insisted that their pupils must possess. 

The champions of infidelity prove to us the wisdom of 
their sayings and doings. Thomas Paine had a good mo- 
tive and a laudable purpose for writing his " Age of 
Reason," which \ve will show from the book itself, w^hen 
w^e corne to speak of it. 

Bishop Colenso has decorated himself with what httle 
knowledge he has of the Bible (he became a bishop and 
has studied for that purpose). 

His book, w^iich tells that a simple-minded African boy 
has confused his mind, and the fact that he was sent away 
to Africa, shows that he is not a great luminary in the 
Church of England; and having studied the Bible for pro- 
fessional purposes, he thought it would pay him better to 
turn his studies against the Bible than use it for the inter- 
est of the Bible, and I believe it did pay him better. The 
title of bishop gave his attack upon the pentateuch a great 
sale. 

Our fiiend, R. G. Ingersoll, whom we admire for his 
oratorical ability, and esteem for his benevolent disposition, 
must bave obtained his biblical knowledge, when he was 
quite young, in some ministerial factory, or has received a 
compulsive religions training when he was a boy, which 
spoiled him, and he became what he is: the greatest anti- 
bîblical p^un of the times. He shoots out the readv-madc 
bail with the explosive powdcr put in it, with 
out adding anything of his own to it, except the oratorical 
Sound of his gun, and that sound brings together large 
crowds of timid women and men to hear him, and makes 
his hay while the sun is bot. Hence, he was an unfit 
pupil to study theoiogy, or be stuffed as a sausage with 
religions ideas. I am certain it was not his choice. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 17 



He made the law of God his shovel and digs with it. 
After he delivered his great lecture, called the " Mistakes 
of Moses," the author of this work has pubHshed, in the Chi- 
cago Times, a proposition to him wherein he proposed to 
bave a pubHc debate with him, either orally or through 
some newspaper, and in that proposition he proposed to 
show that the lecturer is not only defective in bibhcal 
learning, but that he is also déficient in the science that 
cvery man learns from his childhood, and makes use of it 
each and every day of his Hfe: the science of arithmetic, 
which is the Hfe of ail the science that we know of. 

The question as to the number that the Israélites were 
at the time of the exodus, belongs to Colenso and not to 
Ingersoll, therefore the author stated in his challenge to Inger- 
soU, that if the Israélites had four and a half children, on 
an average, to each father and mother, which is the Bish- 
op's ratio, that there must bave been over twenty-four millions 
of births amongst themduring the two hundred and fifteen 
years that they stayed in Egypt, which will be demonstrated 
when we reach that question. 

The other gun of that same battery, Professor 
F. Adler, ought to get the championship for 
being the greatest lecturer and writer without a subject, 
and for being the best rider on the ethical hobby. He 
possesses more empty words than any speaker or writer 
we know, and he talks of having them ail fiUed with 
ethics. We hâve read his book and several of his lectures, 
and the only subject that we bave discovered in it is the 
uselessness of praying for the teachers and pupils of the 
collèges of Babylon, since not only the collèges, but Baby- 
lon, itself, is no longer in existence. 

But they ail talk about and praise up science, that is 
they disprove the Bible by science, and by so doing, they 



i8 A C01.J.ECTI0N OK IHOUGHTS, 

demonstrate science es thc}' do the Bible, that is, they 
either demonstrate that science is imperfect, or that they 
know of one as much as of the other. 



OR KEY TO SCKIPTURE. I9 



CHAPTER IV. 



REPLY TO VOLTAIRE. 



Can gold be dissolved to à fluid or powder? 

Voltaire, iii speaking of the golden calf that the Israél- 
ites had made, said, in his philosophical dictionary: " It 
" îs unknown to chemistry in the highest state of its exist- 
" ence, how to reduce gold to a powder, so that it can be 
" drank when mixed with watcr, as the Bible says that 
" Moses did with the golden calf in question." Hence the Bible 
is not true. But every druggist and his apprentice knows to- 
day, and bave for years long known how to reduce gold to fluid. 
And a book, called "Letters of Certain Jews from Holland 
to Voltaire," says, that a chemist by the name of Stahl 
could reduce gold to a powder, and that he had done it by 
mixing the gold with a minerai substance (we forgot the 
name of it — we speak from memory), found in some place 
in Egypt. This proves that chemistry is better known 
to-day, and was better known to the author of the books 
of Moses than to Mr. Voltaire. Hence, he knew less of 
the Bible than he knew of the highest state of chemistry, 
and, consequently, what he said against the Bible ought 
not to be re-echoed to-day. 



A COLLECTION OK TIIOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER V. 

CAN THE 3IST VERGE OF THE 36TH CHAPTER OF TH:^ 

BOOK OF GENESIS BE APPLIED TO KING SAUL, OR 

TO ANY KING THAT REIGNED IN ISRAËL 

AFTER HIM, AS THE A. O. R,SAYS? 

Thomas Paine, the author of " Common Sensé," " Rio-hts 
of Man," and the " Crisis," as well as his motives and 
purpose of writing his " Age of Reason," makes us love 
the man. His confession of faith, which we find in the 
" Age of Reason," as well as his motives and purpose, 
shows that he was not what his pretended worshipers makc 
him to be, of which v^e will speak in due time. But 
when we take the " Age of Reason " away from the 
author, and from the purpose for which he wrote it, we lind 
that when the " Age of Reason " takes the science of 
grammar to disprove the authenticity of the Bible, it proves 
two other things: First: Either the author was as defective 
in grainmar as Voltaire was in chemistry, or he was com- 
pelled to make use of grammar in that way, and bas donc 
it because of the necessity of accomplishing the purpose of 
the work. Second : It proves v^^hat prophet Isaiah, (chaptcr 
54, verse 17,) says: " No w^eapon that is formcd against thce 
shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thce 
in judgment shall be found guilty." "Their righteousncss 
(the Bible) is of Me, saith the Lord." And for the pur- 
pose of proving what we said, we will hère give the ques- 
tion we speak of, in the language of the "Age of Reason." 

It says: "In the 36th chapter of Genesis, there is given 
a genealogy of the sons and descendants of Esau, and also a list 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2 1 

" of the names of the kings of Edom" (which is the same 
as Esau), in eiiumerating of which it says, verse 3ist: 
" And thèse are the kings that rcigned in Edom before 
" there reigned any king over the children of Israël." 

" Now, were any dateless writing to be found in which, 
" speaking of anv past events, the ^vritcr should say thèse 
" things happened before there was any congress in America, 
"or before there was any convention in France; it would bc 
" évident that such writing coukl not hâve been written 
"before, and coukl only be written after there was a congress 
" in America or a convention in France, as the case might 
"be; and, consequentl}^ that coukl not be written by any 
" person who died before there was a congress in one coun- 
" try and a convention in the other. Nothing is more fre- 
" quent, as well in history as in convention, than to refer to 
" a fact in the room of a date. 

The passage, therefore, that I hâve quoted: " That 
" thèse are the kings that reigned in Edom, before any 
" king reigned over the children of Israël, could only 
" hâve been written after the first king began to reign over 
" them, and consequently, that the Book of Genesis, so far 
" from having been written by Moses, could not bave been 
" written until the time of Saul, at least. This is the posi- 
" tive sensé of the passage. But the expression, " any king," 
"implies more kings than one; at least, it implies two, and 
"this will carry it to the time of David; and, if taken in a 
"gênerai sensé, it carries itself through ail the time of the 
"Jewish inonarchy." 

We bave copied the question and ail the logical argu- 
ments appertaining to the question, because w^e admit the 
whole of it, the question, as well as the conclusion. The 
3ist verse of the 36th chapter of Genesis could not hâve 
been written till after a king hild reigned over Israël, 
and our admission is not made from choice, but we are 



'22 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

compelled to do so, because it is a truism and there is no 
argument against it. But it is equally true, that he who 
says that the phrase, " reigned over Israël " is, or can 
properly be made appHcable to Saul, or to David, or to any 
of the kings of the Jewish monarchy, does it because he 
does not know the différence betweeh the words " over" 
and "m," in the Linguage that he understands best and uses 
most. 

The Czar of Russia reigns in Russia, and \ve say, he 
reigns over Poland. 

The Queen of England reigns in England, and we say, 
she reigns over Ireland. 

Why don't we say the Czar of Russia reigns in Poland, 
the sanie as we say he does in Russia? The answer is, he 
is not of Poland and the seat of government is not in 
Poland. 

The same is the case w^ith the Queen of England. She 
is not one of the Irish nation, and don't reign " in " Ire- 
land. 

Saul was one of Israël, and reigned in the land of Israël, the 
same as the kmgs of Edom hâve reigned in the land of Edom ; 
and if the 3ist verse of the 36th chapter would apply to 
Saul, or to any other king of the Jewish monarchy, it 
would hâve to read: " Thèse are the kings that hâve 
" reigned " in " Edom, before any king reigned " iii ' 
"Israël." Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, w^as the first king 
that reigned over Israël. 

The pretended worshipers of Paine must décide and 
answer which horn of the dilemma they wish to take — 
either accuse Mr. Paine of not knowing the différence 
between the words "-over" and "in," or that he took 
advantage of the verse in question for the purpose of 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 23 

accomplishing- the jDolitical purpose for which the " Age of 
Reasoii " was wntten. The aiithor of this work holds and 
will jDrove by the " Age of Reason " itself, that the latter 
is the cause that made Paine commit the blunder. But, 
before we proceed to demonstrate by the A. O. R. the 
truth of what we say, we must first prove that the 
jDhrase " any king reigned over Israël " appHes to Pharaoh 
by showHig that there was sufficient time for the eight 
kmgs that are named in the 36th chapter of Genesis, to 
hâve reigned in Edom, to which Mr. Paine refers, before 
Pharaoh bes^un to reis^n over Israël. 

Let us suppose that the first of the eight kings in ques- 
tion began to reign in Edom after the death of Esau, the 
father and founder of the Edomites. We bave no record 
of the time when Esau died, but we know when bis twin 
brother, Jacob, died, which was at the âge of one hundred 
and forty-seven years, which is as cld an âge as v^e iînd 
in the history of men who lived in the time of Jacob. Hence, 
we say that Esau died at about the âge of one hundred 
and forty-seven, or at about the same time that bis twin brother, 
Jacob, did, which was seventeen years after the latter came 
to Egypt, at which time he was one hundred and thirty 
years old. Subtracting one hundred and thirty from one forty- 
seven leaves seventeen. Subtract thèse seventeen years from the 
two hundred and fifteen years, from the time that Jacob 
came into Egypt to the time of the exodus (when we 
will come to speak of the purpose, why the Israélites were 
in Egypt, and explain the meaning of what God said: *' I 
will harden bis heart and he shall not send them,") we will 
then prove that two hundred and fifteen years is the time 
from Jacob's commg to the time bis posterity left Egypt. 
Bishop Colenso not only admits, but laboriously proves, 
that two hundred and fifteen years is the time in question. 
Take, we say, the seventeen years that Jacob lived m 



24 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Egypt from the two hiindred and fifteen, which is the 
number of years from his coming to the time that his 
children left that country, leaves one hiindrcd and ninet}''- 
eight years as the tiine that the Israélites stayed in Egypt 
after the death of their fatiier, Jacob, and uncle, Esau. 
Pharaoh began to reign over the Israehtes aboiit the time 
that Moses \vas born. He was born during the time that the 
king ordered to throw every maie child that would be 
born by the Israehtes into the river, and that was the first 
act to stop their increase, except the ordcr given to the 
mid-wives, which did not hist long, for it was, in a short 
time, found ont that it did not work, and the order to 
drown newly born maies of the Israélites was substituted 
for it, and Moses was born during that time, and at the 
time he left Egypt he was eighty }-ears old, as we are told 
in ExoduSj chapter y, verse 7, and by adding the forty 
years that he was in the désert to the eighty of his âge at 
the time of the exodus, makes him one hundred and twenty 
years of âge at the time of his death, as we are told in the 
last cbajoter of Deuteronomy. Hence, it is reasonable, or, 
we hâve no reason to doubt, that Pharaoh, the first king 
that " reigned over Israël," reigned over them about eighty 
years. Subtract thèse eighty years from the one hundred 
and ninety-eight years, the time betweenthe death of Jacob and 
of the exodus, leaves one hundred and eighteen years from 
the time of Jacob's and Esau's death, to the time that 
" any king began to reign over Israël," and during thèse 
one hundred and eighteen years bave reigned in the land 
of Edom, or Esau — the eight kings named in the last i^art 
of the 36th chapter of Genesis. An average of fourteen 
years and nine months for the reign of each king, and, as 
the account says that they hâve reigned in différent cities, 
it may be reasonable to say that more than one of them 
bave reigned at the same time, but we hâve no need 
for it. 



OR kp:v to scripture. 



It may be said, by the pretended followers of Paine, that 
the king of Egypt may hâve reigned a long time over the 
Israélites before Moses was born ; we, therefore, will use 
another line of argument, which proves the same thing and 
leaves no ground for such supposition. 

We are told, in the first chapter of Exodus, that the 
king who began to reign over the Israélites did not know 
Joseph, and that he had not began to reign over them 
"after Joseph, ail his brethren, and ail that génération 
died." Joseph was fîfty-six years old when his father died, 
and lived in Egypt fifty-four years after the death of his 
father. We corne to that conclusion froin the following histori- 
cal facts: He was thirty years old when he explained to 
Pharaoh his dream; add to it the seven years of plenty, 
which cominenced right after the dreani, niakes him 
thirty-seven years old at the time the years of famine 
began, and we are told that Jacob came to Egypt during 
the second year of the famme. Add the two years to the 
former thirty-seven and it makes Joseph thirty- nine years 
old at the time his father came to him. To thèse thirty- 
nine add the seventeen years that Jacob lived in Egypt, 
which brings us to the time of Jacob's death. Thirty- 
nine and seventeen makes fifty-six as the âge of Joseph at 
the time that his father died. 

The last verse of the last chapter of Genesis tells us that 
Joseph died at the âge of one hundred and ten years. 
Subtract fifty-six, his âge at the death of his father, from 
one hundred and ten, the âge at his own death, leaves 
fifty-four as the number of years that Joseph lived in 
Egypt after the death of his father. 

Amongst the many définitions that Webster gives to the 
Word génération, he sa3S, " the people living at the same 
period of time." The two sons of Joseph, who were born 
before their father was thirty-seven years old (they were 



26 A COI.T.ECTIOX OF T]IOUGHTS, 

boni before the famine began) hâve lived together with 
theii" father over seventy years, are included in the généra- 
tion of their father, and so long as they lived niust hâve 
bcen known to the king of Egypt, and when it tells us 
that, after the death of Joseph and his génération, a new 
king arose in Egypt, must mean, and it can not be con- 
striied otherwise, that the new king who began to reign 
over the Israélites arose after the death of the tvvo sons of 
Joseph, and if either one of them lived to the âge their 
father did, one hundred and ten, and he was, as we hâve 
shown, about seventy years old at the time his father died. 
Then he must hâve lived about forty or more years after 
the death of his father, Joseph ; add thèse forty odd years to the 
fifty-four years that Joseph lived after the death of Jacob, 
and it makes more than ninety-four years; and, for ail that 
is known to the contrary, they, or either of them, may 
hâve lived till they reached the âge of their grandfather, 
Jacob; but, however, there is no grounds to suppose that 
many years passed from the time that the new king of 
Egypt began to reign over Israël to the time that Moses 
was born. 



OR KEY TO SCKIPTURE. 2y 



CHAPTER VI. 

NUMBER OF ISRAELITES AT THE TIME OF EXODUS. 

WERE THEY NO MORE THAX 5,000, AS COL- 

ENSO AND INGERSOLE SAY? 

Having already brought to the view of the reader the 
amount of chemical science that Voltair's philosophical 
dictionary contains, vvhich the author of that work has 
used as a weapon against the Bible, and ha vin g shown the 
srrammatical science used by the author of the " Ao^e of 
Reason," we think it would be more in order to sho^v now 
the amount of matheinatical science contamed in Colenso's 
attack upon the pentateuch, and show to what advantage 
the followers of thèse authors use the science of astronomy 
and geology before we demonstrate Mr. Paine's motives 
and purpose of writing his " Age of Reason." 

The work of the Enghsh j^relate is so replète with 
errors or ignorance, or both, and wnth apparent w'illful 
misrepresentations, that we can hardly tell which subjecf 
will show ofF to the best advantage. 

But being that ^ve hâve heard the anti-biblical gun, 
that uses the prelate's combustible ammunition makes 
the greatest oratorial sound when it shoots ofF the bail 
known by the name of "The Number of the Israélites," 
we hâve, therefore, concluded to open that bail and ascer- 
tain the cause why the gun makes such a tremendous noise 
when the bail cornes out of its mouth. 

The Bishop says that if we separate the children and 



28 A COLLECTION OE 'IHOUGHTS, 

those that were not yet married from amongst the seventy per- 
sons that came with Jacob into Egypt, and divide them 
cqually amongst the fathers and mothers to wKom they 
belonged, the average number of children of e^lch father 
and mother Avould be four and one-half.* 

And he shows by what he calls the science of arithmetic, 
that if thev hâve increased during the 215 vears that thev 
were in Egypt, at the same rate, they could hâve been no 
inore in number than about 5,000 inen, ^vomen and chil- 
dren, instead of over six hundred thousand mcn from tvvcnty 
years upwards, as the Bible tells they were, which, he 
says, must make a total population of men, women and 
children of about two millions. 

Now, right hère, 'vve beg leave to difFer with the Bishop, 
and inform him and his echoes that a maie population of 
600,000, from twenty years upwards, and leave polygamy out 
of the question, and say that each on a had but one wife, 
would make 1,200,000 fathers and mothers, and leave but 
800,000 children, which is equal to eight children to six 
fathers and mothers, or about one and one-third of a child 
to each father and mother, nistead of four and one-half 
children to each father and mother. 

As we hâve only took up that part of the question for 
the purpose of showing the mathematical calculations of the 
Bishop, and to hâve a distinct line of delineation to 
Corm a ratio of the theological calculations of the Bishop, 
und for no other purpose, we will, therefore, not endeavor 
to ascertain the total number of the Israélites, or any other 
nation, if each father and mother had on an average four and 
one-half children, and the number ôf fathers was 600,000 and the 



* We hâve no copy of the bishop'à bock, hence we cannot g^ive the language of the 
autliOr; but we believe we g^ive the true account of the bock in question on that point 
and the conclusions of its author. 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTUKE. 2^ 

same number of mothers, but we will endeavor to ascer- 
tain from the historical évidence that \ve hâve, the time that 
it took Jacob to raise his family of seventy, and will then take 
the Bishop's own ratio and see what the number of the 
Israélites could hâve been at the time in question. 

We know that Jacob was 130 years old at the time he 
came into Egypt. The cjuestion is, how old was he when 
he got married, or when the first child was born unto him? 

That is a very, difficult thing to ascertain, but between 
us and the Bishop, we can for the présent purpose come to 
a reasonable solution of that question. 

The Bishop, for the purpose of establishing a natural 
impossibility for two of Judah's grand-children to hâve been 
born at or before the time Jacob came into Egypt, which 
two are named among the seventy that came with him, he 
the Bishop, makes Jacob to be seventy-seven years old 
when he first came to his uncle Laban. The absurdity of 
the Bishop w^ill appear when w^c come to treat that ques- 
tion. 

We say that neither the Bible nor the BishojD give any 
reason why Jacob did not marry at about the same agc 
that his father and brother did, namely : at the âge of forty. 
We propose to divide the différence in the time of Jacob's 
marriage between us and the Bishop. He says seventy-scvcn 
and we say about forty, which makes thirty-seven years dif- 
férence between us. Out of this thirty-seven years we will 
take thirteen, and add it to our forty, which w^ill make Jacob 
about fifty-three years old at the time he came to his uncle, 
and according to the Bishop's statement, it would make him 
hixty-four years old at the same time, and we will leave for 
the reader to décide between us when we come to discuss 
the question of the family of Judah. 

And, for the présent, say that Jacob was fifty-three years 



30 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

old when he came to Laban; served seven years for 
Rachel before he married, consequently was fîfty-threc 
and seven, which makes sixty years when he married, and 
between the time of his marriage and his coming into 
Egypt, which is between sixty to 130, or subtract sixty 
from 130 leaves seventy as the number of years that it 
took Jacob to raise his family of seventy. 

In seventy years from the time that Jacob came into 
Egypt, each one of the seventy coukl raise a family of sev- 
enty, the same as Jacob did, at the rate of four and one-half 
to each father and motiier, and seventy times seventy is 
4,900, and during the second seventy years from the same 
time, each one of the 4,900 coukl also raise a family of 
seventy. 4,900 multiphed by seventy, 343,000, that is the 
number of births that the Israehtes coukl hâve had at the 
end of 140 years from the time that their grandfather, 
Jacob, came to Egypt; and during the third seventy years 
each one of the 343,000 could also raise a family of seventy; 
and seventy times 343,000 makes 24,010,000; thus in three 
times seventy, which is 210 years, there could hâve been 
24,010,000 births, but they were 215 years in Egypt, which 
the Bishop hnnself shows, and three times seventy is but 
210, hence we hâve fivc-seventieths, w^hich equals one-four- 
teenth of seventy left, and one-fourteenth of seventy is equal 
m proportion to one-fourteenth of seventy times 24,010,000; 
and seventy times 24,010,000 equals 1,680,700,000. i\nd ? 
fourteenth part of the last number equals 120,050,000. The 
last number equals the number that the Israélites could 
hâve been at the time of the exodus, if every father and 
mother begat four and one-half children, on and average, 
from and after the time that Jacob came into Egypt, or 
during the 215 years that Colenso says the Israélites were 
in Egypt, instead of but about 5,000 people, as the stupidity 
of the Rev. Bishop makes figures say they were, includ- 
ing men, women and children. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 3I 

It is true that the increase of 120,050,000, of a family 
of seventy in 215 years, is a very unnatnral and unreason- 
able increase; but the Bible is not to be blamed for it. 
Neither is it our fault, nor the fault of figures. It is the 
fiult, or the stupidity. of the Bîshop and his false hypoth- 
esis. According to his calculation, the incredible number 
must hâve been nearly twice as much; for he says it took 
Jacob forty-six years to raise his family of seventy : and 
we, for convenience sake, hâve assumed that it took him 
seventy years.. 

We believe that that is enough for the pui^pose of ex- 
posing the folly or insincerity of Colenso. We will in a suc- 
ceeding chapter show upon biblical hypothesis that the Israél- 
ites were between tvs^o and three millions at the time they 
vvere in Egypt: and w^e are aware there are several appar- 
ent objections, even against that number. 

First: It is a notorions fact that the 70 that went into 
Egypt were not ail of mature âge to generate right awa}-. 

To answer that objection we say, take but one-half of the 
seventy that migrated Avith Jacob to the country in ques- 
tion, that is", multiply but thirty-five by seventy, and the 
j^roduct of it inultiply again by seventy and you wili 
find that the last product will be one-half ot our last num^ 
ber, from which we hâve subtractecl the two générations 
that dicd in Egypt, which will be about thirteen millions, 
The Bishop says they must liave bccn two millions, which 
is about one-thirteenth of the number that we brought 
out, or less than onc-sixth of the number, if we make the 
first multiplicant but thirty-five. 

Second: It may be said, as the reverberating echoes do 
say, that we don't know of any other nation that ever did 
increase so rapidly. To this we hâve two answers: 

First: If the last objection is true, then our answer is: 
no other nation ever was the chosen people of God; no 



32 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS. 

other nation coukl withstand the trouble and oppression 
that the nation of Israël did from that time until now. It 
is a question which the world asks but can not answer 
itself, except by ascribinj^' it to the w^ill and power of God, 
which ]s the purpose for which God hath chosen them, 
and which will in due time be explained in this book. 

The success of Cyrus, the young prince of Persia, in the 
wars against the Babylonians with a handful of an army 
to mardi into the enemy's country while the latter was 
fully prepared for war and had a powerful army, is also a 
very wonderful thing-, and is only answered by the fact 
that God hath chosen him to demolish the proud Bab}^- 
lonians and rcbuild the temple of God at Jérusalem, as we 
are told by the 45th cha^Dter of Isaiah, to which, in duc 
time, we will hâve occasion to refer. 

Our second answer to the last objection is, that it is not 
true. When we compare the incrcase of the people in the 
United States, from three millions after the war of inde- 
23endence to fifty millions at the présent time, and count 
the average life of a génération at the présent time to be 
twenty y cars, and the générations of the time that the 
Israélites were in Egypt to hâve been seventy years, as 
history tells us it was, Moses was of the third génération 
of those who came with Jacob into Egypt; his father? 
Amrom, was of the second génération; his grandfather, 
Kehoth, was of the youngest who came into Egvpt with 
Jacob and is one of the fîrst génération; and thèse three 
générations lastcd two hundred and fîfteen years, which, 
on an avcrage, is more than seventy years for one généra- 
tion, and twenty, the time of a génération at the présent 
time, goes three and a half times in seventy, the time of a 
gensration of the Israélites at the time in question. Mul- 
tiply the population of the United States, at the présent 
time, by three and a half will make the présent i^opulation 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 33 

one hundred and seventy-five millions. From the three 
millions, the niimber that the people of this 
country wcre one hundred years ago, take away servants 
and married women, which are not incliided in the seventy 
that came with Jacob into.Egypt, from which the increase 
of the Israélites is calculated; then calculate what thèse 
one hundred and seventy-five millions, which the présent 
population could hâve been if the length of life of ^ our 
présent génération had been as long as the life of the 
générations of the time in question was, at the same rate 
of increase; calculate what the one hundred and seventy-five 
millions will be, or could be, in one hundred and fifteen 
years from now and we believe that it will be found that 
the people of the United States, in proportion to the time 
and length of life, also the taking oJET the number of ser- 
vants and married women from the three million which 
our population was one hundred years ago, will be found 
to be greater than the increase of the Israélites during the 
two hundred and fifteen years that they were m Egypt. 

The reader will remember that we did not enter upon 
this calculation for the purpose of showing the exact num- 
ber of Israélites at the time in question. We only entered 
upoH it for the purpose of show^ing the truthfulness of 
what the 54th chapter of Isaiah tells : " No weapon that is 
" formed against thee shall prosper. Every tongue that 
" rises against thee in judgement shall be found guilty." 
The w^eapon that the Bishop chose against the righ- 
tcousness of God (the Bible) is the science of arithmetic, 
and that hath turned against him ^s the grammar of the 
" Age of Reason " has turned against itself, and the science 
of chemistry of the philosophical dictionary against its 
author. 

It is often somewnat amusmg to hear the followers of 
thèse scientific men attack the Bible with their so-called 
science. They will tell you "the man who wrote the first 



34 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

chapter of Genesis wrote it as he understood it, and when 
ne wrote that the sun was not created until the fourth day, 
and that there \vas another light before the sun was crea- 
ted, he informs the reader that he knew nothing about 
what he was writing." 

And if you ask them if the sun is the only luminary 
that gives hght, they will unhesitatingly say yes, except 
the moon and stars. 

And when you call their attention to the fact that the 
earth is probably less than a bucket of water to the océan 
in comparison fo the endless space fîlled with glqbes and 
planets, some of which are a great deal further away 
from the sun than the earth is, and the sun cannot illumi- 
nate the small S2:)eck of the earth at one and the sanie 
time, their ready answer is: because the earth obstructs the 
ight of the sun. Ask them, are there no planets betvveen 
the sun and other planets which are a great deal bigger 
than the earth, they answer yes. Ask them how can the 
light of the sun reach the second tier of planets that are 
above or second from the sun, don't thèse that are nearest 
the sun obstruct the light of the sun, they answer: thèse 
planets bave other suns to give them light. Then they 
get out of humor with themselves when you point out to 
them that this is just w^hat the Bible says, that the sun that 
we know of and see, was placed in its orbit to give light 
upon and govern the earth, and the tact that there are a 
numberless amount of suns, is reasonable to believe that 
they are sub-lights, and draw their light from a greater 
light ; or they, the suns, are but lanterns through which the 
light reflects. That is about the distance you can go with 
them. They either jump ofF on some other subject or hâve 
no timc to speak, for they must be ofF, or are thankful 
when some one calls in on some other business, it makes 
no différence which, so long as they get rid "of the 



OF KEY TO ^CRIPTURE. 35 

UNSCiENTiP^ic man who turned their own sciwice against 
them. 

The pretended folio wers of Mr. Paine say that he was 
what they are — ^believe in nothing, and that there is no 
hereafter; that the whole existence of raan ends with the 
death of the body. O, what a stigma it is to the memory 
of the man of humanity and lover of freedom! What a 
contradiction it is to what he himself says on the iîrst page 
of "The Age of Reason." He says: " As several of my 
" colleagues and other citizens of France hâve given me 
" the exa"nple of making their voluntary and individual 
" professions of faith, I also will make mine, and I do this 
" with ail the sinccrity and frankness with which the mind 
" of man communicates with itself. 

" I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for 
" happiness beyond this life." (This are the very essence 
of religion.) " I believe in the equality of man." (That 
is a biblical precept, the rich and poor, the stranger and 
sojourner, and thyself, shall hâve the same right and pro- 
tection.) " One law for all. 1 believe that religions 
" duties consists in doing justice, loving mercy and endeav- 
" oring to make our fellow créatures happy." 

Moses, in every place where he speaks to the Israélites 
of being joyful and happy, commands them that they shall 
make the poor, the stranger, the widow and orphans rejoice 
and be happy with them; that they shall remember that 
they were servants themselvcs, and therefore they shall not 
believe that they are better than the servant. Deuteronomy 
chapter i6, and in many other places in his books of the 
Bible. 

Isaiah, chapter ^S, after reproaching the Israélites for 
their fasting, and hypocritically seeking God daily, and 
pretending to çlelight to know his ways, and taking delight 



36 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

in approaching God, says: " Wherefore hâve we fasted 
"and God secs iiot?" The prophet then says: " Is it 
" siich a fast that God hath choscn? Is it to bow down 
" his hcad as a biiUriish, and to spread sackcloth and ashes 
" iinder him ; will you call this a fast and an acceptable day 
" to the Lord? Is not this the fast that God hath chosen? 
" To lose the bands of wickcdness, to undo the hcavy bur- 
" dcns, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every 
"3'oke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and 
" that thon bring the poor that are cast ont, to thy house? 
t' When thon scest the naked, that thou cover him ; and 
4" that thou hide not thy self from thine own flesh ? Then 
" shall the light break forth as the morning, and thine 
\ hcalth shall spring forth speedily, and thy righteoiisness 
" shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy 
" reward." 

"Iniidelity," says Paine, "docs not consist in believing or 
in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he 
does not believe," wdiich is called hypocracy, and Isaiah 
bas denounced hypocracy as well as Paine, his explanations 
w^hat religion desires ns to do, is the same as Paine de- 
fines it, and they who claim that the latter vvas an Infidel 
or a Deist, hâve as much rcason to apply thèse names to 
the former as they hâve to the latter. It is true, the former 
did not Write the " Age of Reason," which the latter 
did, but the former might bave done the same, from the 
same motive and for the same purpose. 

His motive was, we believe, a religions motive; he thought 
that he was performing a religious duty to help releasc the 
French jDCople from their wickcd oppressors, and break 
down their heavy burden and take ofF the yokes from their 
necks, which Isaiah says, are acts that God is pleased with 

The " Age of Reason," was to help accomplish the same 
purpose in France, that his " Common Sensé '' bas done in 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 37 

America. Both were written for the purpose of gaiii- 
ino^ the " Rig-hts of Man." The risfhts of the Ameri- 

es o o 

can pcople was held from them by the king of Enghincl. 
" Commoii Sensé" was enough to convince them that if 
they dcsired to regain their rights, they had to fîght the 
governors whom the king had sent to rule, and the sol- 
diers to hokl them under the oppressive rule of England. 

But the circumstances were altogether différent in France. 
There the peoj^le for centuries long were taught by wicked 
priests to believe that the rule of the king is the rule of 
God, and to rebel against one, is rébellion against the 
other; their religion was the chain that tied the hands of 
the people to fîght the government for their own " RightSj" 
hence religion had to be demolished before the French 
people could fight for their rights, and the " Age of Rea- 
son " was written for that purpose, and it has performed a 
great deal of work in helping to accomplish it. And that 
it may be known and understood for what purpose the 
" Age of Reason " was written, the author thereof pro- 
fessed his faith, and said that he hoped for " happiness beyond 
this life, and religion is to make our fellow créatures happy," 
and besides this he says on the same page: "The circum- 
" stance that has now taken place in France of the total 
" abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and 
" of every thing appertaining to compulsive Systems of 
" religion and compulsive articles of faith, has not only pre- 
" cipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind 
" e:^ccdingly necessary, lest, in the gênerai wreck of super- 
" stition, of false Systems of governinent, and false theology, 
" we lose sight of morality of humanity, and of the theol- 
" ogy that is true." On the bottom of the second page 
" he says: " Human invention and priestcraft would be 
c' detected, and man would return to the pure, uilmixed 
" unadulterated belief in one God." 



38 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The reader that is familiar with the religious history of 
France during the time in question, as well as for a long 
time before, will without any explanations understand what 
Mr. Paine meant, by what we hâve heretofore quoted from 
his " Age of Reason." But for the sake of those who 
may not be acquainted with the history in question, we 
will give a short explanation of it. 

The church of Rome at that time, and for a long time 
before that, governed France, not only in matters of faith, 
but it had the control over the political government of the 
country in such a way, that it may be said, the Church of 
Rome governed France politically, as well as religiously. 
The priests hâve made the people believe that submission to 
the will of the king, and to his oppression, is submission 
to the will and chastisement of God, and the king, in return, 
compelled the people to submit to the church. The church 
of Rome has made murder and torture the punishment to 
any one that tried to obtain and express any biblical 
knowledge, other than given by the debased priesthood of 
that âge, belonging to that church. Robbery was legal- 
ized for the benefit ot the church. We will hère let 
Charles Dickens tell the crime and punishment of a citizen 
of Bologna, in France, " who actually managed with some 
" kind of wing contrivance to fly from a mountain of 
" Bologna to the river Reno, without injury. Wonderful ! 
" Admirable! cried ail the citizens! Stop a littlc! said the 
" religious authorities of the times, this must be looked 
" into! They sat in sacred conclave. If the man Jiad 
" been killed, said they, or even mutulated shockingly, our 
" religious scruples would hâve been satisfied, but as he 
" has escaped unhurt, it is clear he must be in league with 
" the evil one. The poor " successful" man was there- 
"fore condemned to be burned alive, and the sentence was 
" carried into exécution." 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



39 



A man as Mr. Paine, who shows us and the world, that 
he knew what religion was, and what it ought to hâve been, 
has certainly done a reHgious duty in doing what he did, and 
what he thought would help to rid the world of such inhii- 
man brutes and murderers, and release the people that 
hâve so long sufFered from it, and that is what he meant 
witii what he said: " Human invention and priestcraft 
would be detected, and men would return to the pure one 
God." He said he hoped for " happiness beyond life, and 
religion amongst other things consists of making man, 
happy." We can only make man happy when he' is un- 
happy, and is there a greater unhappiness for man, than to 
believe that death pays him up in full for ail his pain, 
trouble, and fatigue, in this world, to which he came, not 
from his own choice, and the power of his mind is given 
to him by his Creator, who sent him hither for no other 
purpose, than to enable him to contemplate his own misera- 
bleness and nothingness? O, you Ingersolls and Adlers, 
who try to rob man of his happiness, quietudness and rest! 
You mfidels, according to the définition of the word by him, 
(Paine), whose memory you defame, by saying he w^as the 
same that you are! You say that you believe a thing 
which you don't believe. Can we believe, or can . any 
thing make us believe, that Mr. Ingersoll is unable to mul- 
tiply 70"4 times by itself ? So it is impossible for us to belive 
that they believe what they say. 



40 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 



CHAPTER VII. 

CAN THE CREATION BE THE WORD OF GOD ? AND WHAT 
IS BIBLICAL RELIGION? 

" But," says Mr. Paine, " some people will say, " are we 
" to hâve no word of God? No révélations?' I answer, 
" yes; there is a v^ord of God; there is a i-evelation. 

" The V7ord of God is the création we behold; and it is 
" in this w^ord, which no human invention can counterfeit, 
" or alter, in that, God speaks universally to man. 

" Human language is local and changeable, and is there- 
" fore incapable of being used as the means of unchangea- 
" ble and universal information. 

" The idea that Christ w^as sent to publish the glad tid- 
" ings to ail nations, from one end of the earth to the other, 
" is consistent only w^ith the ignorance of those who kncw 
" nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed, in 
" contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the 
" expérience of navigators that the earth was flat like a 
" trencher, and that a man might walk to the end of it." 

There is not a passage, a verse nor a word in the Bible 
which lias not been examined, questioned and answercd by 
the authors of the Talmud, which is about two thousand 
years old, and by those who hâve preceded them. And 
their works show that they kncw the System of the uni- 
verse and astronomy probably bctter than it is known now» 
They did not think that the earth was as flat as a trencher, 
and that a man mio-ht walk to the end of it. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



It is triie, that the language which they used may con- 
vey an idea that they did beheve the earth was flat; but 
the same fact would make us beheve that Mr. Paine also 
beheved that the earth was flat, for he says, in the quota- 
tions we made from his Age of Reason, " from one end 
of the earth to the other." A thing that is round bas no 
end. The authors of the Tahnud and the Bible use simi- 
lar language, because thèse were the words, and that style 
of language was used at that time» If the author of the 
Age of Reason had said, to ail the nations of the globe or 
around the earth, we could know well enough what he 
meant, b.ecause the knowledge and belief that the earth is 
round is now gênerai; but if the authors of the Bible, or 
the Talmud, would hâve said the globe, or around the earth, 
the great majority of the people of their times, could not 
hâve known what they meant, because they, the great ma- 
jority, did not know nor believe that the earth was round. 

It is true, that man did not know the structure of the 
universe before the discoveries made by Newton. Neither 
did man know of America before it was discovered by 
Columbus; but the aboriginees, the Indians and Mexicans, 
are undisputed évidence that the land which is now called 
America, was known to the people that were found in it, 
and they, or their ancestors, must hâve known of that 
country before they came to it, and they must bave had 
some communication with some people in some part of the 
world, though the then known world in the time of Colum- 
bus knew nothing of them. And the same is the case with 
the System of the universe, though the world knew noth- 
ing of it until Newton had discovered it. Nevertheless the 
Talmud is undisputed évidence that the authors of that 
work knew of it, as well as the Indians knew of America. 
And the fact that they call the planets globes, ( " Galgal- 
lim," Hebrew, ) round things or globes ; and the fact that 
they explain the chariot which Ezekiel saw in his vision: 



42 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

that God showed to him the structure of the universe; and 
say that the " wheels " represented the différent planets, 
and the " wheel in a wheel," represents that one planet is 
subject to and dérives aid froni another planet. The move- 
ments of the whéels represents the movements of the planets, 
that they are not stationary, " and that one wheel was upon 
the earth," includes the earth as one of the revolving 
planets. 

Let the reader who knows anything of astronomy, read 
attentively the fîrst chapter of Ezekiel, and construe it 
according to the Talmudical construction, of which we hâve 
pointed out the key-hole to him; and let him, the readèr, 
judge whether they, the authors of the Talmud, knew of 
the structure of the universe or not. Thèse, and thousands 
of other things that are found in the Talmud, make us 
believe and assert, that our présent System of astronomy 
and the System of the universe, was known to the authors 
of the Talmud, and to those that preceded them, but was 
forgotten since the Bible came into the hands of the church, 
which made death the penalty for anything said contrary 
to what the fathers of the church said, the Bible says, the 
few Jews who, during the time, knew of, and understood 
the Talmud, had as much of a chance to communicate their 
knoweldge of the Talmud or the Bible, as the Indians had 
to communicate to the world their knowledge of America. 

And when we come to speak of the tabernacle that 
Moses had built, we will hâve a chance to show that 
Moses, as well as some of the men who worked at the 
building of the tabernacle, knew the structure of the uni- 
verse, and the Talmud calls the tabernacle a " small uni- 
verse." Isaiah says, he " saw the Lord sitting upon a throne 
" high and lifted up, and his train fîUed the temple. Above 
" it stood the Seraphim." The Talmud says, that Isaiah 
saw the same thing that Ezekiel saw, but the structure and 



OF KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 43 

System of the universe was so well known in the time of 
Isaiah, at Jérusalem, that by saying: I saw the " train of 
the Lord," was understood Avhat was meant. They com- 
pare Isaiah to one who lives in a city where the k'ing and 
his train, and attendants passes through often. When one 
says, I saw the king and his train, the inhabitants of that 
city know what he saw, and Ezekiel they compare to 
one who saw the king and his train the fîrst time, and tells 
it to a people who never saw the king nor his train; he 
has to tell not only how the king looks, but lias to de- 
scribe the carriage and the horses as well. Ezekiel told 
what he saw to the people in Babylon who did not know 
the structure of the universe as the people of Jérusalem 
did; hence, he had to describe the chariot and the horses, 
or the beasts, that made the chariot move. Let us now 
return to our subject. 

Can the " création we behold be made the wora of 
God?" 

A thing that was used for a certain purpose for over 
four thousand years, ought to be known whether the thing 
in question accomplishes the purpose for which it was used 
or not. Up to the time that the Bible was given to the 
Israélites, man knew of no other word of God for relig- 
ious guides than the création that he beheld, which we 
believe will not be disputed, even by our friend Mr. In- 
gersoll, that it was the same création that we behold now; 
and that was the word of God and religio;:3s guide that 
the world had, with the exception of the Jews, up to the 
time that Rome came to the knowledge of the Bible, and 
accepted it as the word of God, which is about fifteen 
hundred years ago. Hence,, we say, that man used the cré- 
ation that we behold as the word of God for about four 
thousand long years. The ministers of religion were astrono- 
mers; they could read the création that they did and 



44 ■ A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

we do behold. How hâve they succeeded ? What knowl- 
edge hâve they transmitted to us in their historiés of their 
révélations? Mr. Paine says in his Age of Reason, that 
he beheves m one God. Would he hâve selected Osiris, 
Orus, Apis or Isis? Or w^ould he hâve been satisfîed vvith 
a dog, or sheep, or any other animal which the Egyptians, 
the wisest nation that existed at that time, hâve seived and 
honored as gods, according to the word of God, which they 
read in the book of création ? Or w^oiild the author of the 
Age of Reason hâve selected some garden vegetable for 
his own god? 

History tells us that ail thèse and thousands of more gods 
that the Egyptians and other nations hâve served, who had 
no other word of God than the création that they beheld. 

" Egpyt," says Rollin, (and he takes it from Lucian, Plu- 
tarch and others), " was ever considered by ail the ancients 
" as the most renowned school for wisdom and politics, 
" and the source from whence most arts and sciences were 
" derived. Greece was so sensible of this that its most 
" illustrions men, Homer, Pithagorus, Plato, even its great 
t' legislators, Lycurgos and Solon, with many more whom 
" it is needless to mention, traveled into Egypt to complète 
" their studies." 

In speaking of the priests it says: " They had great 
" priveleges and revenues. The prince usually honored 
" them with a large share of his confidence and government; 
" because they, of ail his subjects, had received the hest 
" éducation, and acquired the greastest knowledge. They 
" were, at the same time, the dépositaires of religion and 
" of science." Neverthless, their religions folly, derived by 
their taking the création of the world as the word of God, 
is described by the same historiaiis as follow^s: 

" The Egyptians, not contented with ofFering incense to 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



-tD 



" animais, carned their foUy to such an excess, as to ascribe 
" a devinity to the puise and roots of their gardens, for 
" which they are ingeniously reproached. 

" Who lias not heard where Egypt's realms are nam'd? 

" What monster gods hor f rantic sons hâve fram'd. 

" Hère Ibis erorged with well grown serpents, there 

" The Crocodile commands religious fear; 

"• Where Memnons statue magie strains inspire, 

" With vocal sounds that emulate the lyre; 

*' And Thebes, such, Fate, arethy disastrous turns, 

" Now prostrate over her pompous ruins mourns, 

" A monkey god, predigious to be to!d, 

" Strikes the beholders eye with burnish'd gold. 

" To godship hère blue Triton's scaly herd, 

" The river progeny is there prefered; 

" Through towns, Diana's power neglectedlies, 

" Where to her dogs, aspiring temples rise; 

" And should you leeks or onions eat, no time 

" ^Vould expiate the sacriligious crime. 

"Religious nations sure, and blest abodes, 

" Where every orchard is overrun with gods." 

" It is astonishing, " says the same historian, " to see a 
" nation which boasted its superiority above ail others, with 
" regard to wisdom and learning, thus blindly abandon 
" itself to the inost gross and ridiculous superstitions. Indecd, 
" to read of animais, and vile insects, honored with relig- 
" ious worship, placed in temples and maintained with great 
" care, at an extravagant expense; to read, and those v^^ho 
" murdered them were punished with death; and that thèse 
" animais vrere embalmed, and soleinnly deposited in tombs 
" assigned them by the public ; to hear that this extravagance 
" was carried to such lengths, as the leek and onions were 
" acknovvledged as deities, were invoked in necessity, and 
" depended upon for succour and protection, are absurdities, 
" which we, at this distance of time, can scarcely believe; 
•' and yet they hâve the évidence of ail antiquity. You 
" enter," says Lucian, " into a magnificent temple, every part 
" of which glitters with gold and silver. You there look 
" attentively for a god, and are cheated with a stork, an 



46 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" ape or a cat; a just einblem," adds that author, " of too 
" many palaces, the masters of which are far from being 
" the brightest ornament of them." 

We are compelled to admit our inability to find words 
that would express the absurdity better than the words of 
the historians themselves. Far be it from us to accuse Mr. 
Paine of having beheved such nonsense. We ascribe what 
he said in the Age of Reason, to the purpose for which he 
wrote that book. 

They, who studied what the Bible tells us is a création, 
did not know or believe that that is a création. And some 
of the anti-Bible men don't believe now that it is a créa- 
tion. The Bible is the only one that tells us that what we 
behold is a création, and refers us to that great and won- 
derful création, for the purpose of forming what little the 
human mind is capable of forming, in the shape of an idea 
of the Great and Mighty Creator, the one God, the object 
of biblical teachings, transmitted to us by the indistructible 
nation, the Jews, which gives us the knowledge of the one 
God, the hope for happiness beyond this life, the loving of 
justice, mercy, and to endeavor to make our fellow créa- 
tures happy, which language calls religion. 

Yes, the Bible is the only school wherein the idea of a 
création is, or ever was taught; and biblical religions arc 
the only teachers who hâve ever taught that branch of 
knowledge. Each and every religions dénomination is a 
method of wliich that class or dénomination can best ac- 
quire the much desired knowledge, namely : the knowledge 
of the Creator. Each dogma helps to accomplish that pur- 
pose. 

The missionary who, at the risk of bis life, tries to incul- 
cate the knowledge of the Creator through His création, 
into the heart and minds of the savages, must lînd a method 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 47 

to accomplish his mission, as is best suited for them whom 
he is to teach. 

To say that one biblical religion is better than another, 
so long as they ail work for the accomplishment of the 
same purpose, is the same as questioning whether an Abe- 
cedarian teacher is as necessary and iiseful as a professor of 
the higher branches of éducation. Each branch is as use- 
fiil and necessary to the religions tree, for the purpose of 
producing its desired fruit, as the roots, branches and leaves 
of any other fruit tree are needed for the same purpose. 
It is true that the former as well as the latter, needs some 
scraping and pruning once in awhile. 

. Even the compulsive religions system that was practiced 
at the Church of Rome, was also an indispensable neces- 
sity, the same as there is in some countries a necessity of 
a law, to compel parents to send their children to common 
schools. It took ail the compulsion that the Church of 
Rome had, to bring the Pagans out of their Pagan temples, 
into the biblical school. But, after they were brought to 
school and had learned a little, and liad shown a will to 
learn more, compulsion ceased to be the right method. 
Then pruning became a necessity, and that branch of the 
religions tree is now \vell pruned by the pruning-hook, 
called protestantism. 

We will explain the purpose of religion more fully when 
we corne to speak about the total destruction of the nations 
which the Bible tells us God has commanded the Israélites 
to destroy. 



4S A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 

The Age of Reason, as well as its foUowers, and the 
defamers of the memory and name of its author, ridicule 
the bibHcal account of création, because, as ^hey say, it gives 
an account of but one world, the heaven and the earth 
which God hath created; and they say science proves that 
there is an iUimited number of worlds; hence, they conclude 
that science proves the Bible, or the biblical account of 
création, to be false. And we, in answer to what they say, 
maintain that science proves nothing against the biblical 
account of création, but on the contrary it substantiates and 
proves what the Bible says. Ail that science proves is, that 
they v\^ho say that the biblical account of création tells us 
that God hath only created one world, the heaven and the 
earth, do not understand the first verse of the flrst chapter 
of the Bible. Nay, they don't understand the first word 
of the chapter in question. Had they known the meaning 
of the Hebrew word "Be-rash-ith," from which the words, 
" in the beginning," the first three words of the English 
Bible are translated, they w^ould know that that word alone 
tells of an indefinite number of worlds. And for fear that 
the reader would conclude from what we hâve said, that 
the translators of the Bible from the Hebrew language, did 
not understand the language that they were translating 
from ; or that we mean to say that amongst those who say 
and believe, that the Bible tells us that God hath only 
created the one heaven, and the one earth, are no men 
who understand the Hebrew language. For the purpose that 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 49 

the reader may not misunderstand us, say, that the seventy 
translators who made the first translation of the Bible from 
the Hebrew to the Greek language, which translation is 
known by the name of " Septuagin," hâve understood the 
Hebrew language, and knew the biblical account of créa- 
tion thoroughly. 

They knew that that account tells of an illimited num- 
ber of worlds that were created by the same Creator, and 
at the same time that He hath created the heaven and the 
earth. Nevertheless, they hâve translated it the way they 
did, which apparently tells that God hath only created the 
one heaven and the one earth, and the reason for their trans- 
lating it so is, because that idea was more in accordance 
with the idea of the Greeks of that time, for whose benefit 
that translation was made. In writing a primer for a child 
the writer must construe his ideas in accordance with the 
idea of the child for whose benefit he is "writing, and not 
in accordance with his own knowledge and power of com- 
préhension. 

The 2Stli verse of the 22d chapter of Leviticus, the Eng- 
lish version leads thus : " And whether it be a cow or ewe, 
" ye shall not kili it and lier young both in one day." The 
Word cow is translated Irom the Hebrew word " shore.' 
And each and every one that knows anything at ail of the 
Hebrew language, knows that the word "shore " means 
ox ; and also knows that the word " poroh," means cov^. 
Nevertheless, the translators, though they knew the major- 
ity of the Hebrew words to translate it properly into that 
language, yet they hâve substituted the word cow for the 
word ox. It certainly cannot reasonably be said or suppose d, 
that the translators m question, were so ignorant of the 
language from which they were translating, as not to 
know the word that dénotes an ox from the one that dénotes 
a cow. 



50 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

But the cause of that mistrarislation is very obvious, 
which is this: the verse in question prohibits the killing on 
the same day of a parent and its ofFspring, and the idea 
that an ox, which is a castrated maie, and consequently can 
never be a parent; and being that it is hard to know the 
maie parentage of an animal, it would be so contrary to 
the idea of those for whom the Bible was translated, and 
it would hâve been almost a mystery to them how the 
maie parentage was to be ascertained, especially when the 
parent is an ox. The word ox is inserted in the Hebrevv 
Bible to answer a case of probability or uncertainty which 
may happen, and that is, if the maie parent of an animal 
should be known, even after he becomes an ox, he and his ofF- 
spring were^iot to be killed on the same day, the same as 
the female parent, the cow. And though the cow, or the 
female parent, is not mentioned in the verse in question, 
but she is included by the second phrase, or the v/ord 
shee^D, which includes both maie and female. The Hebrew 
word from which the word ewe is translated is " seh," 
which means sheep, not ewe. But, as we bave said, the 
translators hâve made this mistranslation, because they 
desired that the idea thereof shall coïncide with the ideas 
of those for whom the translation was made. Neither is 
the reader to suppose that we mean to convey an idea, 
that amongst those who say that the Bible tells God only 
created one world, are no men who understand the Hebrew 
language. What we mean to say is, that mère reading of 
the Hebrew or any other language, is not enough to give 
a proper understanding of the subject read. Gluttony is as 
injurions to the mind as it is to the stomach ; to eat more 
than the stomach can diorest, or load un the stomach with 



up 



food that it cannot digest at ail, sickens the whoie body, 
and makes the stomach throw back the indigestive, or what 
it has more than it can digest in an indigested statc. And 
reading, is to the mind, whatyiçtiials is to the stomach, If a 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



man reads more than his mind can digest or comprehend, 
or reads what his mind can't comprehend at ail, then the 
more lie reads, the more he weakens his mind, and it also 
often throws out indigested food or ideas that it could not 
comprehend. 

The twelve lectures which the mind of Professer î^obin- 
son Smith has lately thrown out upon the world, shows 
that he read more than his mind could digest, and has 
read such subjects that his mind could not digest at ail. 
The whole twelve lectures of his consist of indigested stufF; 
and they contain some talmudical food which his mind 
is entirely unused to, and consequently could not digest at 
ail. Had he properly digested or understood the fîrst chap- 
ter of Genesis before he read any further, and continued to 
read according to the power of his mental digestive Sys- 
tem he, most assuredly, would not hâve had to vomit out 
the whole book of Deuteronomy in an undigested state, 
and his entire mental System would hâve now been in a 
healthier condition than it is. 

We will now return to our subject, the first verse of the 
Bible. The English version of that verse reads thus: *'In 
" the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
The proper Hebrew word, for the word beginning or com- 
mencement is "Techeloh," or "ba-thecheloh," in the begin- 
ning. The letter " B " in the Hebrew language when pre- 
fixed to other words dénotes a préposition, sometimes it 
stands for the word, in, sometimes for the préposition, on, 
and, with; it is governed by the word to which it is pre* 
fixed. 

The Hebrew word from v\/'hich the word, beginning, is 
translated, is " Rash-ith," which means, first, " the first of 
your dough." Num. chapter 15, verse 21. The first fruit; 
the first fleece. Deut., chapter 18, verse 4, as well as ail the 
words, first, that are in the Bible exccDt the fii'st born, arç 



52 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

translatée! from the same Hebrew word " Rash-ith," that 
the word " beginning," in the fîrst verse of the first chap- 
ter of the Bible, is translated from, and the word, first, can 
never take the place for the word, beginning, or commence- 
ment. The beginning or commencement of a thing is in the 
thing itself, for example, we say this or that street begins 
or commences at the lake; or the Republican form of gov- 
ernment of the United States lias began on the 4th day of 
July, 1776; but it is certainly improper to say that Wash- 
ington was the beginning Président of the United States. 
He was the first Président. And the word, first, means the 
head one of a séries, and implies an indefinite number, so 
long as the word, last, is not named, and, the Hebrew word, 
" Roush," means head, principle thing, first or chief, the 
letter B there stands for the préposition, with, " Rash," 
chief. The chief or first part of a thing is that part which 
we see of it, and the chief part of the création, to us, is the 
earth which we inhabit, and the heaven or the skies which 
we see. Thus, we see that the word, in the beginning, is 
a mistranslation of the Hebrew; it ought to be translated 
with the chief or with the first, and the Hebrew word 
from which the words, the heaven, is translated, is also pre- 
fixed by the word, with, to make a Verbatim translation of 
it into the Englishlanguage, ^vould read: with " the heaven," 
and the ^vord, with, in the Hebrew Bible, is also used be- 
fore the word, " the earth," and after the conjunction, and; 
a Verbatim translation of it would read, and with the earth. 
The word, with, before heaven and before earth, imply 
addition. A Verbatim translation of the whole verse would read 
thus: "With the chief-created God, with the heaven and 
with the earth." This verse has always been understood, 
and we hâve explanations that were v^a-itten thousands of 
years ago, which explain the verse thus: With the chief 
Création, God created, with the heaven ail that appertains 
to the heaven, and Avith the earth, ail that appertains to, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 53 

surrounds or seen from the earth. The belief and knowL 
edge that the verse in question has that meaning, prompted 
and led the ancient Jewish philosophers to study the science 
of astronomy, as we will subsequently prove by the work 
of Maimonide, and what Aristotle says of some Jews that 
he knew in his time. And if we are asked, why did not 
the Jews who made the first translation of the Bible 
from the Hebrew into the Greek language, give the mean- 
ing of the verse in question, as herein above rendered? The 
answer is very obvions. First, to translate a thing is a dif- 
férent work from explaining the thing translated. And as 
has heretofore been shown by the translation of the 28th 
verse of the 2 2d chapter of Leviticus, a plurahty ot worlds 
was contrary to the idea and belief of those for whose 
benefit the translation was made, and would destroy the 
object and purpose of the Bible, which is to inform man 
of the great Creator through His wonderful création. And 
of what use would it be to inform them of the invisible 
and unknown parts of the création when they did not 
know nor believe that the heaven which they saw, and 
earth which they occupied, were created? The Bible is a 
school book; it teaches mankind; and a school book must 
be made adaptable to the compréhension of the scholar. 

The Bible having first informed them of that part of 
the universe which they saw, and that informination soon 
germinated and grew to the astronomical and other scientific 
knowledge which the Greeks had, and which Mr. Paine says 
came to us. 

We will now proceed to examine how the science of astron- 
omy agrées with the biblical account as to the relative pos- 
ition of the Sun to the earth, and then see how that account 
agrées with the science of geology: 



54 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The first verse of theBible, as lias been explained, tells 
that an indefinite number of worlds were created at the 
same time that the heaven and the earth were created; and 
becanse the earth was created for man to dwell upon, the 
Bible, therefore, describes how the habitation of man was 
created. When that création was, it does not tell, but it 
tells in what condition the earth was from the time it was 
created up to a certain time. It says : " And the earth was 
" without form and void." " And darkness was upon the 
" face of the deep." 

The reason why the earth was without form and \oid 
îs very obvions: it was under water. The form of the 
earth could then no more be told, than we can now tell 
the form of the bottom of the océan. 

" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
water." The words "Spirit ot God" is translated trom the 
Hebrew words " Rooach Alohim." The word " Roo-ach" 
is used in the Hebrew language for the words Wind, 
Breath, Spirit, Air, 

The word "Alohim," from which the word God is 
translated, comes from the word "Al" (power), of which 
"Alohim" is the plural (powers). The word " Alohim " is 
often applied to man. It is applied to Moses: " He (Aaron) 
" shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him 
"for a God," Exodus, 4:16. " See, I made thee for a 
GdJ unto Pharaoh." Exodus, 7:1. " Thou wilt be to 
"thepeople for a God." Ex., 18:19. "Make us Gods * * * 
"for we know not what became of Moses." Ex., 22:1. 
(They looked upon Moses as the power that brought them 
out of Egypt, and they wanted to hâve a power made for 
them in place of Moses.) 

Ail the words God, in the above quotations, are trans- 
lated from the Hebrew word "Alohim.** 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 55 

From what \ve hâve quoted^ it can be seen that tlie 
Word "Alohim," from which the word God is translated, 
means Power, and the last, " make us gods," shows that it 
meaiis pkiral. 

The words " Roo-ach Alohim," from which "The Spirit 
of God" is translated, mean the "Air," one of the éléments 
or powers through which everything exists. Every thing 
that lives or grovvs has in itself four elements—Earth, 
Water, Air, Heat or Fire. 

The words or phrase "And the Spirit of God" means 
and ought to be translated thus: And the air, one of the 
powers, ("Alohim,") " moved upon the tace of the deep." 
To say " the Spirit of God," in the same sensé as we say 
" the spirit of man," would imply something besides the 
spirit. Man is constructed of a spirit and body; and if the 
Bible tells us nothing else, it certainly tells us that God hath 
no body, and that he is a pure, invisible Spirit. Hence, 
the words " Roo-ach Alohim" were always understood by 
the Hebrews to mean the " air," which is one of the créative 
and maintaining powers of everythmg that exists upon the 
earth. (See " Moureh Nebuchim," chapter 30, Part 2d, 
what Maimonide said about it seven hundred years ago, — 
and he quotes what others hâve said about it thousands of 
years ago. And in our explanation ot the Biblical account 
of création we will not deviate from his conclusions on the 
same subject.) 

And there is another thing that ought not to be over- 
looked, and that is: ail the words, God, that are mentioned 
in the fîrst chapter of Genesis, in the English Bible, are 
translated from the word "Alohim." And also, wherever 
it says God appeared or spoke to one that was not of the 
seed of Abraham, except Noah, as God came to Abimelech 
and to Balaam, the words God, are ail translated from the 
word Alohim. And wherever we find in the Bible that 



5^ A COLLECTION Oïf THOUGHTS, 



God appeared or spoke to, or that the Spirit of God was 
upon any of the prophets, the word God is, in the Hebrew 
Bible, represented by the word "Jehovah." ist Samuel, 
10:6: "And the spirit of the Lord," Jehovah in Hebrew. 
Isa., 61:1: "The spirit of the Lord God," in Hebrew, 
" Lord Jehovah." 

Ezekiel, 37:1: "And the hand of the Lord was upon 
" me, and carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord." The 
same verse in the Hebrew Bible reads: " The hand of 
" Jehovah was upon me and brought me out in the Spirit 
" of Jehovah." The word Jehovah is the only name that 
may be properly applied to the Deity. It is an abbreviation 
of the words Past, Présent and Future, and that is what 
He is. 

And the zd and 3d verses of the 6th chapter of Exodus 
tells us that God hath told Moses the différence in the two 
names, or that he, Moses, is not as obedient, or is more 
inquisitive than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were. It reads 
thus: " And God spoke unto Moses and said to him, I am 
" the Lord, (Hebrew, 'Jehovah,') and I appeared unto Abra- 
" ham, Isaac and Jacob by the name of God Almighty." 
(Hebrew, "Al Shadoi," Power Almighty, or Almighty 
Power, which the word "Alohim" means, powers illimited, 
or plural of Power.) " But my name of Jehovah I hâve 
" not caused them to know." The name of Jehovah ia hère 
expressed in the English version of the Bible. 

We believe we hâve produced proof enough, from the 
Bible itself, both expressed and implied, to convince the 
reader, who may not be familiar with the Hebrew language, 
that tlie word Alohim means powers. We will now résume 
our subject. 

The earth, the Bible tells us, was under water, and the 
"Air" (one of the powers of "Alohim," God,) was upon the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 5*7 

water. Hence, Darkness was upon the face of the deep. If 
the Spirit of "Jehovah" had been moving upon the face of 
the waters, it would hâve been light, for He is called, and 
is, the Hght of the universe; but as the whole "Air" laid 
upon the waters, which was subsequently removed and 
called " Roke-a," as will appear when we corne to that 
Word. 

And the light of the sun, which was created at the 
same time that the heayen and the earth were, must, until 
it developed itself from other éléments, hâve been imper- 
ceptible, the same as the earth was under the éléments of 
air and water. This, we think, fully accounts for the 
darkness that was upon the face of the earth. 

The Biblical account of création gives us three accounts. 
It tells in the first verse that the whole universe was 
created, but it does not tell when or how it was created; 
and then it tells us how that part of the world which we 
occupy was, before it was developed : " It was dark and 
invisible." It then tells us how it became developed — the 
same as telling of a conception — the condition of the object 
conceived from the time of the conception until it was born 
or developed to the eye. Maimonide compares the devel- 
opment of the universe to a field sown at one and the 
same time with a mixture of différent seeds which do not 
ail germinate or sprout out alike, or at the same time. 
One sort of seed will come out of the ground several days 
before another, and it will therefore take several days after 
one seed will be out of the ground before ail the seed that 
were sown can be seen out of the ground. 

" And God said let there be light, and there was." 
This does not tell that it was light upon the face of the 
earth. If that light had been visible upon the earth there 



58 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

would be 110 need for the sun to be placed in what is 
called the firmament. 

" And God saw the Hght that it was good." Free- 
thinkers ask: " Did not God know that the Hght would 
" be good before He made it ? and why should it be said : 
" 'And God saw that it was good ?' " The answer to that 
question is, that is not the Hght that we behold, nor did 
any Hving man ever see that Hght. And what God saw 
is, he saw it is good that no man shall ever see that Hght 
so long as he is on the earth. That is what the text means 
to tell. 

" And God divided the Hght from the darkness." It 
cannot be even for a moment supposed that the division 
between the Hght and darkness it speaks of means the 
Hght that we behold from the sun, or the darkness that 
envelops us when the sun is imperceptible to us, because 
there is no absolute division on the earth between Hght 
and darkness. The sun does not cease to shine upon the 
earth, neither does darkness cease to prevail upon the earth. 
While it is day on one part of the earth, it is at the same 
time night on the opposite thereof. One who could per- 
ceive the whole earth at one and the same time would 
perceive day and night, or Hght and darkness, at one and 
the same time. Or could behold no division of time, as 
day and night; while day would be on the east side of the 
earth, night would be on the west side. He could never 
say, It is evening, nor, It is morning. He would continu- 
ally see both at one and the same time. God sees the 
whole earth at once, and when it is said that it was a 
division between Hght and darkness or day and night, it 
must necessarily imply that it was wholly day or wholly 
night. The division spoken of is the division or séparation 
that exists between man and the Hght in qu'estion. As far 



OF KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 59 



as that light is concerned, man dwells in darkness; and it 
tells us that God savv that it was good that man shall not 
see the fîrst cause of light, any more than he can see the 
first cause of anything that is in the universe. 

In the biblical account of what was created during the 
second day, it does not say: "And God saw that it was 
good," because on that day what is called the " firmament' 
was created, and inasmuch as man does not know what 
the firmament itself is, he will not search for the first 
cause of it; hence it does not say that God saw that it 
was good to separate man from the knowledge of the first 
cause. 

The Word light is used to express what is needed for 
the eye to see, as " We cannot see in the dark without a 
light;" and the same word is also used to express what we 
need for the mind to comprehend or understand, as " I see 
no sensé in it." (Sensé we cannot see.) And the word 
light in the subject in question is used to express the latter. 
" And God said, Let there be knowledge (light) in the 
world." 

It has always, until lately, been understood that the 
language of the Bible is figurative, especially where it 
speaks of the action of God. The prophets themselves say 
that they spoke in comparisons and parables. It is only 
the would-be theologians of the présent time who make the 
Bible to be and say what they choose to understand it 
to be. 

W. Robertson Smith, M. A., in his first of the twelve 
lectures that he has lately delivered, says: " The ancient 
" fathers laid down the principle that everything in Scrip- 
" ture which, taken in its natural sensé, appears unedifying, 
" must be made edifying by some method of typical or 



6o A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

" figurative application. la principle this is no longer 
" admitted in the Protestant churches, unless, perhaps, for 
" the Song of Solomon ; but in practice we still get over 
'* many difficulties by tacking on a lesson which is not 
" really taken out of the difficult passage, but read into it 
" from some other part of Scripture. People satisfy them- 
" selves in this way." 

We do not know whether the practice of the Protestant 
churches is as Mr. Smith says it is or not, neither is it a 
part of our business or purpose to know ; but we do know 
that the saying so by Mr. Smith caused him to throw 
away one book of the Bible altogether. In his twelfth lec- 
ture he concludes that the book of Deuteronomy was un- 
known to the Jews until after the time of the Prophet Isaiah. 
The method of getting rid of the incompréhensible passages 
of Scripture by throwing them away is indeed an improve- 
ment on the man's idea of saving fuel. A man bought a 
stove, when stoves first came iuto use, and found out that 
it took but one-half of the fuel that a fîreplace did; so he 
logically concluded to buy another stove. He said: " If one 
" stove saves one-half of the fuel, another stove will cer- 
tainly save the other half, and two halves make one whole;" 
hence the man concluded that two stoves w^ould save him 
ail the fuel. And we are inclined to believe that Mr. 
Smith's method of explaining unedifying parts of Scripture' 
or parts which he does not understand, will soon lead him 
to the conclusion of throwing away the whole Scripture, 
and in that way get rid of ail the unedifying scriptural 
passages. 

But for ail that Mr. Smith may say and do, the Bible 
will be what it has been, and the subjects that are in it 
which the human mind was not made to understand, nor 
has the human language words to express the same, will 
remain hidden in the figurative phrases in which they are. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 6l 

And though the human mind is incapable of understanding 
the subject, it nevertheless can easily discover the meaning 
of the figurative phrases. Not only did the prophets speak 
figuratively, but the explanations given of thèse subjects by 
the ancient commentators are also figurative. For example : 
the mouth of the ground that swallowed Korah, the mouth 
of Balaani's ass, and the rainbow, are subjects vs^hich the 

human mind cannot understand. 

The authors of the Talmud, in speaking of thèse things, 
say: " Ten things were created at twilight of the cvening 
" before the Sabbath." By the word " twilight" they con- 
veyed the idea that thèse subiects w^ere obscure to the 
human mind, and by the word " Sabbath" thev convey the 
idea that when the mind reaches that far it can go no 
further. It must rest there, for it is as far as the mind can 
comprehend. It is the evening or commencement of the 
Sabbath — rest. 

We will now résume our subject. 

The'-Tree of Life will give us a better opportunity to 
explain why it is good that man shall not see the first 
cause, which the Bible tells us God saw at the time of the 
création, and we will therefore, for the présent, leave this 
subject and proceed to examine w^hat was created on the 
second day. 

" And God made the firmament and divided the waters 
" that are (Hebrew — English were) under the firmament 
" from the waters that are above the firmament; and it 
" was so." 

The word firmament is also démonstrative proof that 
the Bible was translated to comply with the ideas and 
beliefs of thos^ for whoni the translation was made — that 
is, the ideas and behefs that they had at the time and before 
the translation was made. 



62 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

The Hebrew word from which the word firmament 
is translated is " Reke-ah." That word, we believe, is de- 
rived from the word " Rek" (empty), and. is used for the 
word fine, or very thin. In Exodus it says: " And they 
" did beat the gold into thin plates, and eut it into wires to 
" work it in the blue and in the purple, with cunning 
« work." 

The words " And They Did Beat Into Thin" are ail 
translated from the same word that the word firmament is 
translated from, with a prefix of " wi," which stands for 
the conjunction "And," expressing the masculine gender, 
and a sufhx W, for the pronoun they. The English letters 
of the word in question are, w, i, r, k, ew, and the word 
is pronounced Wa-yerakoo, and the letters of the word 
from which the word firmament is translated are, r, k, i, 
e. (The i gives no defînite meaning to the word, and is 
not articulated in the pronunciation of the word.) The 
word is pronounced Rokea. 

There is no place in the Bible where the word is 
used to express the word firm. Maimonide and three com- 
mentators of his work " Moureh Nebuchim," ail agrée, and 
refer to what others hâve said who lived thousands of 
years before them, that that which we call firmament is a 
body of air, and wherever the word is used it implies 
*' spreading out." But the word that is generally used in 
the Hebrew language for " spreading out" is the word 
" Porash" (he spread), " Porshoo" (they spread). And as 
the word " Rekea," wherever it is made use of in the 
Bible, dénotes a thin spreading, or a spreading made of 
very thin substance, we are therefore inclined to think that 
the letter k of the word " Rekea" cornes from the Hebrew 
word " Dk," pronounced Dak, (thin,) and we know of 
nothing that is thinner tban air; hence that word hasbeen 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 63 

made use of in describing the sky, which is a body of air 
spread out and made to divide the earth from the heaven&. 
We think that we hâve fully estabhshed the fact that 
the biblical account of création does not say that God hath 
created only one world, the heaven and the earth only, and 
that the authors of the Bible and the ancient commentators 
of the same book did not beheve that the earth was flat 
and immovable; and that they not only knew that what is 
called firmament is not firm, but they knew that what is 
called firmament is a body of fine air, the same as they 
knew that what is called " sea" is a body of water. But 
the anti-biblical reader may say : " We hâve no other proof 
'• that it is so than the say-so of the author, or his explanation 
" of certain words of the Hebrew langcuaç^e." We there- 
fore propose to substantiate what we hâve said or explained 
by circumstantial évidence, and the évidence that we pro- 
pose to produce is of such nature that the anti-biblical 
élément cannot object to, because it is just such évidence as 
they use and ask that the friends of the Bible shall pro- 
duce. 

The pious înfidei, Bishop Colenso, says that the Jews 
hâve borrowed from the Moabites the names that we find 
in the Bible applied to the Deity, the God of Israël; and 
that Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, is the same that 
the Israélites bave served, and in whom we believe now. 
He bases that conclusion upon the évidence of a certain 
stone said to bave been found in the land of Moab, with 
inscriptions on it relative to a victory that Mesha, king of 
Moab, had in a war with Omri, king of Israël, over three 
thousand years ago. The yet ùnknown stone is said to 
hâve been found by an unknown, nameless German mis- 
sionary — probably one who belongs to the German anti 
Jew party. On this évidence the pious Bishop stakes his 
présent réputation and future existence. 



64 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Professor Smith, anotlier pious fraud, says: " Biblical 
" criticism is not the invention of modem scholars, but the 
" legitimate translation of historical facts." He also says: 
" There are some critical processes which cannot be ex- 
" plained without constant use of the Hebrew text." 

We hâve that far complied with vvhat the Professor 
says. We hâve been, and will hâve to be, governcd by 
the Hebrew text of the Bible in ail cases where it is not 
properly translated into English, and hâve shown reasons 
why it is so translated, and bave more than once announced 
that our explanations and conclusions are " historical facts." 

And the Professor also says: " The évidence of bibli- 
" cal history ought to be weighed on the same scale and 
" subject to the same rule as the évidence of other historiés 
*' is." And that is the very thing which we now propose 
to do. 

Not only does science create ideas in our minds, but it 
also compels our language to create or invent v^'ords to 
express the ideas which science lias created. For example: 
the Word " telegram" was unknown in the English lan- 
guage before the telegraph came into existence or use. 
Suppose that two hundred years ago the word telegram 
had been found inscribed on some stone among the relies of 
ancient times, we could not bave known what the word 
meant, because the science of telegraphy was then un- 
known. Man would bave construed the w^ord to mean 
whatever his mind might hâve thought proper. And sup- 
pose it was concluded that the word telegram meant letter. 
And if at the same time some ancient history would tell 
us that a certain king used to send letters to the gênerai 
of his army, who was two thousand miles away from the 
king, and in less than an hour thd king used to get an 
answer to his letter, we certainly would not and could not 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 65 

believe it. But when the knowledge of the science of 
télégraphie communication came to us and compelled us to 
invent the word telegram, we would be compelled to be- 
lieve that the science of telegraphing was known to and 
used by the ancients. The Bishop and the Professor would 
undoubtedly say: " The inscription of the word telegram 
" among the relies, say on the 'Moabite stone,' is undisputed 
" proof that the historian told the truth about the speedy 
" answers that the king received to his letters; and both 
" together are undisputed proof that the telegraph was in 
" use by and known to the ancients, and there is no reason 
" for disputing what they tell us!" 

And in the same way does the science of astronomy 
prove the meaning of the Hebrew word " Rekea," found 
inscribed in the Bible; and what the Talmud (history) tells 
us of the création, men hâve construed the word " Rash- 
ith " to mean " Beginning," and the word " Rokea " to 
mean " firmament," the same as they hâve (in the supposi- 
tion) construed " telegram" to mean " letter." Astronomy 
compels us to change our construction of the one and ac- 
cept what history tells us about the subject in question. 
And the Talmud is the only history that w^e hâve which 
explains the biblical account of création, and the explanation 
it gives coïncides with the démonstration which science 
gives to us. 

Suppose that a man would say the Jews (who are but 
a very small minority among Christian nations) bave bor- 
rowed their names and religion from the Christians, and 
would substantiate his idea or belief by the fact that we 
find among Christians biblical names, and Hebrew names 
that are not found in the Bible, such as " Eben Eser," 
which in the Hebrew language means " Stone of Help," 
or helping stone, and because we find Hebrew words in 



^S A COI>LECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Hebrew letters engraved on stone in the walls of Christian 
churches. What kind of an opinion could we form of the 
man who maintained such a beHef, and endeavored to make 
others believe the same thing? We believe the only thing 
which would save the man with such a belief from beinsr 
sent to an asylum for the insane, would be, the reasonable 
or natural plea of ignorance. And the same opinion that 
we could form and conclusion to which we could reasona- 
bly corne about the man in the supposition, we must form 
the same opinion and come to the same conclusion about 
the Right Rev. Infidel Bishop Colenso, because his lecture 
called the "Moabite Stone" exhibits as much learning or com- 
mon sensé and sound reasoning faculties as the man who 
would insist that the Jews hâve borrowed their religion 
from the Christians; and if we should hâve to answer to 
what he says in the lecture in question, our reply would 
hâve to be governed by the rule that King Solomon made 
in Proverbs, 26:4 and 5: " Answer not a fool according to 
" his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool 
" according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." 
The meaning of thèse two apparently inconsistent verses is 
this: If a foolish question is asked, and you believe or bave 
reason to believe that he who asked the question desires a 
proper answer, and will accept it, and that the answer will 
make him v^iser, then " Answer not a fool according to 
" his folly, lest thou also be like unto him," (a fool,) for it 
must be reasonably supposed that you cannot give him the 
proper answer. But when you believe and there is reason 
to believe that the querist believes himself wise, and thinks 
others are fools, and therefore thinks that he can make 
them believe his foolish question or idea, then Solomon 
says: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be 
" wise in his own conceit." An answer to the Bishop's 
lecture called the " Moabite Stone " cornes under the rule 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 67 

last named, because there is reason to believe that the 
Bishop thinks the world is foolish enough to believe what 
he says, and that he believes the nonsense of bis lecture in 
question. To give him a proper answer to the nonsense of 
his lecture would only strengthen bis belief in bis own 
" conceit." Hence, the only reply that we see fît to make 
to it is: If the lecture in question is not the product of 
natural ignorance, then his mind is not in a sane condition, 
and he should be sent to an asylum for the insane! 

If the history of the Christian religion should bappen 
to get lost, and in three thousand years from the présent, 
or at any other time, the world should know no more of that 
history than we know ot the Moabite religion without the 
knowledge that we get of it in the Bible, and some un- 
known German missionary should bappen to find a stone 
in the ruins of a Christian church with the words " Beth- 
el " engraved on it in Hebrew letters, (wbich we often see 
over the doors of churches,) and some Bishop should then 
say that the patriarch Jacob borrowed from the Christians 
the name of " Beth-el," wbich the Bible says he gave to 
the city of Luz, Oh, how our spirits would laugh at the 
Bishop's foolishness! And so ought we now, while yet our 
spirits are in our bodies, laugh at the infidel Bishop who 
says the Je^^-s borrowed their language and religion from 
the Moabites, or from any other nation that existed at the 
time in question. 

We say, and we believe that the reader will coincide 
with us in the opinion, that every man who bas any reason- 
able share of common understanding, and who is not an 
infidel Bishop, ' w^ould take the Moabite stone — (if there 
actually was such thing found as the Bishop says there 
was;we know that in his "Attack upon the Pentateuch," in 
speaking of or about a " shekel," he could not tell the truthj 



68 



and therefore we hâve grave doubts whether he tells the 
truth about the stone in question,) — as évidence to substan- 
tiate the biblical truth, because the Bible tells us of the 
wars that the kings of Judah had with the kings of the 
Moabites, and both accounts agrée. 

But w^e are morally certain that if the friends of the 
Bible would bring up the évidence of the stone in question 
for the purpose of demonstrating the truth of the Bible, the 
infidel Bishop, and ail the professors, priests and laymen of 
infîdelity would say that it v^as a natural impossibility for 
the stone to hâve stood for the last three thousand years 
with the inscription on it in the Moabite language. Would 
not they say that the Moabite Shiekh (which means 
ruler) who informed the German missionary of the stone, 
that he or any of the Moabites could hâve known the in- 
scription on the stone, and its value, before the German 
missionary told them ? " For nearly thousand years," says 
the Bishop, " that stone had lain exposed to ail the éléments, 
" uncared for, but now the Moabites found that it was very 
" valuable, and worth, as they supposed, its weight in gold." 
They would say that ail this proves that the stone is a 
fraud, and the Moabites wanted money to keep the secret. 
And we hâve the right and reason to say the same. But 
as the stone proves nothing against the Bible, but on the 
contrary supports what the Bible says, as we will demon- 
strate to the Bishop when we corne to examine his "Attack 
upon the Pentateuch," and will therefore let the Bishop and 
the Moabite stone for the présent be where they are and 
what they are, and résume our subject, which is the biblical 
account of what was created on the third-day of création. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 69 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EARTH, AND ITS RELATIVE 
POSITION TO THE SUN AND OTHER PLANET 

We hâve frequently heard men who call themselves 
scientists and critics say : " The man who wrote the bibh- 
" cal account of création did net understand the laws of 
" nature as demonstrated by science, and consequently wrote 
" the account of création as he understood it. Had he 
" known that nothing can grow upon the earth and nothing 
" can ripen without the heat and light of the sun, the 
" account says that the earth was created on the third day, 
" and that on the same day it brought forth grass, fruit 
" trees, with the seed thereof in itself ; and that the sun 
" was not created until the fourth day." Hence they ques- 
tion how anything grew upon the earth without the heat 
and Hght of the sun, and therefore conclude that the 
author of the chapter in question knew nothing of the 
laws of nature. 

The men that we speak of may probably be scientists, 
but they are certainly no critics. Had they been the latter, 
they would hâve perceived that in the account of création 
ail the products that are now produced by the laws of na- 
ture did not corne into existence at the time of the création 
before the créative éléments were in working order accord- 
ing to the laws that their Creator made for them. 

We now hâve to ask a few questions about the bibli- 
cal account of création, before we can demonstrate what we 
said about that account. 



70 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

First. It says that on the first day of the création 
God created Hght, and that He made a division between 
light and darkness. To the Hgnt he called day, and to the 
darkness he called night. According to that part of the 
account, there was light and darkness, day and night, im- 
mediately after the first day. What need was there for the 
sun and other luminaries which, the account says, God 
created on the fourth day? 

Second. God certainly knew that He woiild hâve to 
make the sun and other luminaries, and place them in the 
firmament. Why had He not donc so on the second day, 
while He was making the firmament? 

Third. " On the third day," says the account, " God 
" said, Let the waters be gathered together, and the dry 
" land appear." And it further says that on that day God 
ordained the earth to bring forth grass, herbs, and fruit 
trees producing fruit, and the seed thereof to be in itself, 
" upon the earth, and it was so." The twelfth verse or 
the one foUowing says: " And the earth brought forth 
" grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the fruit 
" tree yielding fruit whose seed is in itself, after its kind." 
Why did not God ordain or make the earth produce ani- 
mais at the same time that he made it to produce fruit? 
Why did he wait with that part of the work until the 
sixth day? The same question may be asked about the 
créatures which live in the water. Why did He not create 
them on the third day, when the waters were gathered to- 
gether and He named them Sea? Why did He wait with 
that part of création until the fifth day? 

Fourth. In telling how the firmament was made it 
says: ^' And God made the firmament," etc., and the ac- 
count ends, '-and it was so;" and it is the same in the 
account of the waters being gathered together unto one 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



place and let the dry land appear, " and it was so," and 
also in the account of the earth, the words " and it was so" 
are foliowed by another verse which affirms the same sub- 
ject. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses of the chapter 
in question give the account of how the earth and its pro- 
ductions came into existence. The last clause of the iith 
verse is, " and it was so ;" and the twelfth verse reads thus : 
" And the earth brought forth grass and herbs," and repeats 
the same words that are said in the eleventh verse. What 
is the use of repeating the same words in the twelfth verse? 
The words " and it was so " at the end of the eleventh 
verse affirm that it was done as God ordained; hence the 
twelfth verse seems to be superfluous. 

It is the same in the account of the création of the 
sun and the moon. The fourteenth and fîfteenth verses 
read thus: " And God said, Let there be lights in the 
" firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night? 
" and let them be for signs and for seasons, ana for days 
" and for years. And let them be for lights in the firma- 
*' ment of the heaven to give light upon the earth; 'and it 
" was so.' " And verses sixteenth and seventeenth repeat 
the same thing over. They read: " And God made two 
" great lights and set them in the firmament of the heaven 
" to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day 
" and over the night, and to divide the light from the 
" darkness." 

There is but one answer to ail the preceding questions : 
The heaven, the earth, and the other Systems of worlds 
were created at one and the same time ; and the days of créa- 
tion which the biblical account of création speaks of, are 
the différent epochs of time that were necessary for the 
things to be developed and perform the purpose for which 
they ^vere created. The light spoken of as having been 
created on the first day is either the first cause of light, 



73 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

(which no man ever saw while he lived upon the earth, 
and that lias never given light upon the earth as the sun 
does,) oi^ the word Hght in the Hebrew as well as in the 
EngHsh langua^e, (especially in the former,) is as often 
used to express compréhension as it is to express sight or 
visibllity. 

The accounts of the firmament and the seas close by 
the words " and it was so," as God hath ordained, without 
repeating the same as it does in the accounts of the earth 
and the sun, because the former were at once fuUy devel- 
oped. The firmament was formed from the " air " (spirit) 
that was upon the face of the water, as is explained in the 
preceding chapter; and the seas were made from the water 
that was upon the earth: and both were ready to perform 
the purpose for which they were made; therefore nothing 
more is said in their account after the words " and it was 
so." 

But the earth, to perform the purpose for which it was 
created, must hâve the beat and light of the sun and the 
aid of other éléments, because the earth could not perform 
her duties before the éléments were developed and ready 
to lend their aid to the earth. It therefore repeats the 
words " and it was so." The earth was ready to perform 
her part, but the sun, the " help-mate" of the earth, was 
not yet developed; and the répétition, or the twelfth verse 
of the account in question, means or tells that the earth 
did not produce before it received her indispensable aid 
from the sun and other parts of the création. And because 
the earth could not perform the purpose for which she was 
created without the sun and moon, the account of their de- 
velopment is connected with or follows the account of the 
development of the earth, instead of Connecting it with the 
account of the formation of the firmament, which it is rea- 
sonable to suppose that it should be, because it is in the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. ^3 

firmament the same as the account of the formation of the 
seas is connected with the account of the création of the 
earth, and on the same day, and which the author of the 
création would hâve done, the same as he did of the seas 
and the earth, if he had not intended to convey the idea 
he did, that tlie earth did not yield anything before the sun 
was able to give her his aid. 

And the three apparently unnecessary verses in the 
account about the sun, which follow the w^ords " and it was 
so," tell us that the sun and moon could not perform their 
duty until they were fuUy developed and received their aid 
trom other sources; and for that reason it says in the verse 
that follows the words " and it was so,',' " He made the 
stars also," — that is, the sun and moon were and are subject 
to some other planets or worlds. 

The earth possessed her productive power as soon as 
it was developed, as it has now, the same as an animal 
possesses its regenerative power as soon as it is born, but 
cannot regenerate before it gets fully developed and obtains 
its requisite aid from another animal of its kind. 

If the earth would hâve now, or had on the third day of 
création, the power to produce living animais, cattle and 
other beasts, or if that would be in accordance with the 
laws of nature, she (the earth) would hâve been ordered to 
do so at the same time that she was ordained to produce 
" grass, herbs, trees, fruit and their seeds," and the writer 
of that account would bave given the account thereof in 
his account of what took place during the epoch that he 
calls the third day of création. But it is not natural for 
the earth to produce oxen, cows, men or any other animais. 
Thèse were produced by the earth through a spécial super- 
natural power; therefore the author of the account of 
création made a spécial account of it. He calls it the sixth 



74 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

epoch or day of création. The place that was made for 

the animais to inhabit (the earth) was complète, food for 

them was already in abundance. Then, and not before then, 

was the time to create the animais and bring them on the 

place that they were to dwell upon; and then did the 

Creator by a spécial ordinance, which man calls a miracle, 

ordain the earth to " bring forth the living créatures after 

" their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that 

" creepeth up©n the earth, after its kind;" and after ail 

thèse were upon the earth, the man, who was to and does pos- 

sess, enjoy and rule everything that is on earth, was brought 

forth and placed in possession of ail; and if the reader 

should ask why it was not written in the Bible in such a 

manner that each and every man shall so understand it, 

we answer that question by saying: For the same cause 

and reason that the earth was not made to yield its fruit 

without the labor of man in cultivating it. What would 

man be if he had ail he wants without laboring for it? The 

Great and Wise Creator " saw that it was good " that man, 

as well as everything that he hath created, shall hâve to 

work. 

"We will now see what the anti-biblical critics, or scien- 
tists, as they call themselves, say of the création. 



OF KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 75 



CHAPTER X. 

THE BIBLE AND THE SCIENCE OF ASTRONOMY. 

The author of the " Age of Reason," for the purpose, 
as we believe,. of accomplishing his political object, plays 
the boy, who thought he had caught a flying star in the 
meadow, and who accused books of teaching what was not 
true, because they say that the stars are monstrous globes 
of hght, and what he caught proved itself to be only a 
fîre-fly with six legs and two wings to fly away. Had the 
boy known more of books than he did, he would hâve 
known the différence between a star and a fîre-fly, and he 
would also hâve known that a meadow is not the place to 
look for a star. And if Mr. Paine did not say what he 
did for the purpose of accomplishing his political object, as 
we believe he did, but said it as the best of his knowledge 
and behef, then we believe we are justifîed in saying: If 
Mr. Paine, like the boy, had known more of books and 
languages, he would hâve known the différence between 
Greek astronomy, which knew nothing of the Bible, and the 
astronomy that was known and practiced among the people 
who knew and were m asters of the Bible. 

We hâve seen with what success Voltaire applied the 
science of chemistry against the Bible, Paine the science of 
grammar, and Colenso the science of arithmetic. Let us 
now see what success Mr. Paine has in the use of as- 
tronomy against the truth of the same book. 

He says: " Almost ail the scientifîc learning that now 
" exists came to us from the Greeks, or of the people who 
*' spoke the Greek language." 



76 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

That may be so, but Mr. Paine says the word of God is 
in the création and in the science which that création teaches 
us. Then, do we need any better or more proof than the 
Greeks and their scientifîc knowledge, which Mr. Paine 
speaks of, to prove that man can learn nothing of God with- 
out the Bible, unless it be by direct révélations? 

The Greeks, as well as the Egyptians, were a scientifîc 
people. They hâve beheld the sanie universe that we be- 
hold; they hâve scientifically examined, and, with ail their 
science, they did not believe, nor could they fînd out, whether 
that w^hich they beheld was a création. And if they, with 
their science, could not learn that wdiat they beheld was a 
création, how could that lead them to a knowledge of or be- 
lief in a Creator.'' 

The head of the Greek philosophers and the father of 
their philosophy, Aristotle, not having had the knowledge 
of the Bible, could not and did not know that what he be- 
held and scientifically examined was ever created. His phi- 
losophy simply made him say : If the world is a créature, 
then there must be a Creator; and he concluded that the 
world was not a créature. 

Let us now see what he, the head of the Greeks and 
the father of philosophy (Aristotle), says about the scientifîc 
and philosophical knowledge of the Jews. 

Clearchus, a scholar of Aristotle, in his fîrst book con- 
cerning Sleep, says that Aristotle, his master, relates what 
follows of ajew, and sets dovvn Aristotle's own discourse 
with him. " Now for a great part of what this Jew said, it 
" would be too long to recite; but what includes in it both 
" wonder and philosophy, it may not be amiss to discourse of: 
" Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall 
" herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will re- 
" semble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides an- 



(( ( 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 77 

swered modestly and said : 'For this very reason it is that 
«ail of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going 
to say.' Then replied Aristotle : For this cause it will be 
" best to imitate that rule of the rhetoricians which requires 
" us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation 
" he was, so that we may not contradict our master's direc- 
'* tions. * * * * Xhis man (said Aristotle) was 
" by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyra. Thèse Jews are 
" derived from the Indian philosophers; they arei named by 
" the Indians 'Calami,' and by the Syrians 'Judaei,' and took 
" their name from the country they inhabit, which is called 
" Judea; but the name of their city is a very awkward one, 
*' tor they call it Jérusalem. Now this man * * * came 
" down from the upper country to the places near the sea and 
" became a Grecian, not only in his language but in his soûl 
" also, inasmuch that when we ourselves happened to be in 
" Asia, about the same places whither he came, he conversed 
" with us and with ail other philosophical persons, and made 
" a trial of our skill in philosophy ; nnd, as he had lived with 
" many learned men, he communicated to us more informa- 
" tion than he received from us." 

This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by 
Clearchus, with whom Aristotle discoursed. " Those that 
" please may learn more about him from Clearchus' book 
" itself, for I avoid writing down more than is sufficient for 
" my purpose," says Josephus. (See Tosephus against Apion, 
bcok first.) 

The Jew, of whom Aristotle was relating to his pupils, 
must hâve told him and the other " philosophical persons" 
of the biblical knowledge that he (the Jew) possessed, and 
that is very likely what Aristotle meant in saying " it will 
" seem like dreams " to the pupils; and that Jew, says Aris- 
totle, imparted more philosophical knowledge to Aristotle and 
the other philosophical persons than he had received from 



78 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

them. It is évident from what Aristotle says about the Jew 
whom he met in Asia among the Greeks that, in the time of 
Aristotle, there were greater philosophers among the Jews 
than even Aristotle was. No wonder that Ptolemy Philadel- 
phus, about forty 3'ears after the death of Alexander the 
Great (who was a pupil of Aristotle,) spent so much money 
and took so much trouble to hâve the Bible translated into the 
Greek language. Alexander must hâve known what his 
teacher, AUstotle, thought of the Jews and of their book, 
the Bible. And Soter, the father of Philadelphus, who 
brought many thousands of Jews into Egypt, must hâve in- 
quired of them also, and compared what he learned of them 
with what he had heard Aristotle say of them, and created 
within him a désire to obtain a knowledge of the Bible ; and 
the great number of philosophers who were kept at Alexan- 
dria at the expense of the king must hâve known of the Jews 
and of their wisdom, and hâve confîrmed the information 
that the king had in relation to the Jews. 

But before we make use of what history tells about the 
Jews and the Greeks, w^e will fîrst compare the scientifîc 
knowledge that Mr. Paine crédits to the Greeks to the same 
scientific knowledge that we find in Hebrew books written 
thousands of years ago. 

Not wishing to incorporate the whole " Age of Reason" 
into this work, (which we would hâve to do if we should copy 
the exact words that Mr. Paine uses in his arguments,) and 
being that we intend to debate each and every question that 
he raised against the Old Testament, and against biblical re- 
ligion in gênerai, we will therefore give only the substance 
of what he says as arguments, and will copy what he quotes 
from the Bible, or subject upon v/hich the argument is 
based. 

Mr. Paine says: " After I made myself master of the 
" globes and the orrery, and conceived an idea of infinité space 



I 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 79 

" and of the eternal divisibility of matter," he foimd that the 
Bible taught what was not true (though he does not say it 
in the same words, but it is the same in substance). He then 
goes on to tell that the solar System of the universe consists 
of six planets besides the sun, gives their names, and the dis- 
tance that each one is from the sun. This is what Mr. Paine 
and the Greeks know of the solar system. 

But Maimonide, who lived between seven and eight 
hundred years ago, says nothing about globes and orreries, 
either because they were too much known at the time in 
question, and that it was thought useless to name them or say 
anything about them; but he says that the solar system, or 
System of worlds and planets to which the earth belongs can 
consist of no less than eighteen revolving planets, besides 
their moons, of which he says that nine are known to ail ; 
and also that there are strong reasons to believe that in or be- 
tween thèse planets there are a vast number of minor planets. 
And in another part of his book he says that the whole im- 
mensity of space is as fuU of planets or Systems of planets 
as the body of a human being is filled with bones and 
sinews, and that each and every planet moves by or through 
one and the same power, the same as ail the members of the 
body move through the vitality of the heart. Nine of thèse 
planets, says the author of the same book, " Moureh Nebu- 
chim," Chap. 4, Part 2d, were known unto ail who knew 
anything about astronomy, and he substantiates what he says 
by the sayings and writings of men who lived fourteen or 
fîfteen hundred years before his time and were contemporaries 
of Aristotle, and brings up thèse subjects for the purpose of 
disproving what the Greek philosophers that had preceded 
and succeeded Aristotle and what Aristotle himself had said. 
Add to this what Aristotle said to his pupils about the Jew in 
Asia, and the désire and great endeavor of Ptolemy to obtain 
a knowledge of the Bible, and then add to ail thèse the dem- 



8o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

onstration that the science of astronomy has made to us since 
the time of Mr. Paine. We are no scientist, but a copy of 
" Olemsted's Compendium of Astronomy," published in the 
year 1839, tells us of nine superior and two inferior planets 
which constitute the solar System, or the system to which the 
earth belongs, besides the planets that were discovered since 
the year 1839, the time that the book which we consulted 
was printed, and ail thèse prove beyond a doubt that the 
Greeks obtained their knowledge of science from the Jews, 
and the Jews came to their knowledge of thèse sciences be- 
cause the biblical account of création telling them that what 
they beheld of the universe was a créature, and was created 
by the Creator in whom the Jews believed — the One God of 
Israël — they were therefore in the position of one who knows 
that a valuable diamond was dropped in a certain place : he 
will certainly look for it. The Jews knew of the valuable 
knowledge that was hidden in the création. They looked 
for it and found it. The Greeks and the nations which pre- 
ceded them knew nothing of the création nor of the knowl- 
edge that is to be gained therefrom, and hâve therefore not 
looked for it until after they saw that the Jews had enriched 
themselves with it. Aristotle said that one wandering Jew 
(probably a peddler) had more of it than he and ail the " phi- 
losophical persons " that were tbere, and gave them more than 
they had possessed before they had received what they did 
from the Jew, and further, that there were a great many. 

The boy of the fable who caught the fire-fly is, we be- 
lieve, a fair représentative of the astronomical knowledge 
that Mr. Paine exhibits in his " Age of Reason," and the 
évidence of the case shows that our belief is not erroneous. 
The astronomical theory of the " Age of Reason," in com- 
parison to the knowledge that the ancient Jewish writers 
exhibit on the same subject, is as a fire-fly to a star. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 8l 



CHAPTER XL 



LANGUAGE AND MAN. 



" It is always necessary," says the " Age of Reason," 
" that the means that are to accomplish any end be equal to 
" the accompUshment of that end, or the end cannot be ac- 
" comphshed. It is in this that the différence between the 
" finite and infinité power and wisdom discovers itself. 
" Man frequently fails in accompHshing his ends from a 
" natural inablHty of the power to the purpose, and fre- 
" quently from the want of wisdom to apply power prop- 
" erly. But it is impossible for infinité power and wisdom 
" to fail as man faileth. The means it useth are always 
" equal to the end." 

We hâve copied the foregoing from the " Age of 
Reason " because it is a truism. Truth cannot be successfully 
used for anything that is not true. It is like oil, it always 
cornes to the top when mixed with water. It makes no 
différence whether it is a finite or infinité power or wis- 
dom that wants to accomplish an object through or by a 
finite power, or human being, it must use the power that 
the employée, or the one employed possesses. For example: 
If We wish to employ steam, we must calculate the power 
that the engine possesses; if we wish to employ horse- 
power, we must calculate upon the power that a horse 
possesses; and if we wish to employ human power, we 
must calculate the power that a human being possesses. In 
the case before us the question is: What is the best power 
pr method " to make man know his Creator, an4 carry put 



82 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the will of his Creator? There certainly can be but one 
answer to that question: We must convey to him whom 
we wish to employ, in the language which he, the em- 
ployée, understands, and language then is the greatest 
power that man possesses. 

Language is a part of the powers Hiat man possesses, 
which make him the image of his Maker. The power of 
reasoning that man has, comes trom the mind. The mind 
comas from the invisible soûl, which is a part of the 
Creator. With language, one man can draw a picture 
upon the mind of another man. With language we can 
raise the feeling of man's heart. VVhat benefit could the 
world dérive from the great discoveries that men hâve made 
if they who made the discoveries had not submitted their 
discoveries to the world in a language that is used in the 
world ? Of what benefit could the discovery of America be 
to the world, if Columbus had not informed the world of 
it in language? Of what benefit could the discovery of the 
power of steam, the power of electricity and the System of 
the universe be to us if each discoverer had kept his dis- 
covery in the realms of his mind without informing the 
world of it? And last, but not least, of what benefit could 
be to us the discovery that the world which we behold and 
the numberless worlds with which the endless space is 
fiUed, were created, and that God is the Great Creator of 
them? Of what use could it be to man if it had not been 
remitted to him in language, which it is in the Bible? Mr. 
Paine says: " The only idea man can afiîx to the name of 
" God is that of a first cause — the cause of ail things." 
But we know that before man knew of the Bible he pre- 
sumed everything to be the first cause of itself, and admired 
and worshiped everything as the first thing, or God. 

" It is only by the exercise of reason," says the author 
of the "Age of Reason," "that man can discover God. 
" Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of 



OR KHV TO SCRIPTURE. 83 

" understanding anything." Language is the power that 
reason uses to convey understanding to man. Take away 
that language from him, and what good will silent and 
helpless reason be to him ? Through language, a man can 
make even a horse understand something; and vvithout lan- 
guage even the reason of Aristotle could not understand. 
VVithout the language of the Bible, even he could not un- 
derstand that what he saw was not the first cause. How 
comes it that Mr. Paine rejects language? He questions 
and dénies that the Bible is a révélation. Thafm-ay hâve been 
a proper question, w^hen the Bible was given to man, over 
four thousand years ago. But that is not the question of 
to-day. Does the Bible reveal anything to us? is the ques- 
tion now, not whether the Bible is, or is not, a révélation itself. 
The question is not, how did Moses know that the nations 
of the earth would praise the Jews for their superior w^is- 
dom and understanding, which he does in the fourth chap- 
ter of his hfth book, but the question is: Does not the 
praise which Aristotle, the greatest and wisest man of the 
Greeks, the greatest and wisest nation on the face of the 
earth at that time, of which we gave a synopsis in the for- 
mer chapter, prove that Moses knew? Hence the Bible is 
a révélation to us, for it reveals to us what Moses knew. 

The wild state of the Ishmaelites, the Turks and their 
indestructibity up to the présent time, is proof to us that 
the author of the sixteenth chapter of the first book of Moses 
knew what he said. It is a révélation to us; for it reveals 
to us that he knew, and the visible fact herein named, is 
undisputed proof of the truthfulness of what it reveals to us. 

When Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon, and 
called the one that was to destroy it by name, hundreds of 
years before he, Cyrus, was born, and said that Babylon 
shall be what it is, was a question for those whom Isaiah 



84 A C0I>LECT10N OF THOUGHTS, 

told it was a question for them to ask, whether it is true, 
what Isaiah says, or not. But that is no question for us to 
ask. To us, it is a direct révélation, and the fact that we 
cannot ascertain within hundreds of miles where that great 
citv stood, and find that hundreds of miles in the nei^hbor- 
hood, where histor}' tells us that city stood, is now nothing 
but swamp, as is foretold in the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah, 
is proof to us that what that chapter reveals to us is true. 

The world does not ask to-day, nor is it a question for 
the world to âsk to-day, how Jeremiah knew that a " full 
end," a total destruction, will be made of the nations where 
the Israélites were driven to, and that the Israélites will 
only be corrected in measure, and not left wholly unpun- 
ished, as is told in the forty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah. 
The world does not ask how Jeremiah came to know ail 
this, but it looks upon the indestructibility and graduai pun- 
ishment of the Israélites, and takes it as a proof that what the 
Bible reveals to us about the people must be true; hence, 
the' Bible is a direct révélation to us, and to each one of us. 
We will hâve a chance to explain the word Révélation 
when we come to speak of the angel that Balaam's ass saw, 
and which spoke to Baalam. 

Mr. Paine, in speaking of the first cause, says: "And 
" incompréhensible and difficult as it is for a man to con- 
" ceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it 
" from the ten-fold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is 
" difRcult, beyond description, to conceive that space can 
" hâve no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. 
" It is difficult, beyond the power of man, to conceive an 
" eternal duration of what we call time, but it is more im- 
'• possible to conceive a time when there shall be no time." 
Ail this is none of man's trouble to know while he is on 
çfjj-|;}TI^_and the power is not ^iven to human understanding 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 85 

to comprehend anythino^ of which Mr. Paine speaks which 
we hâve heretofore copied. But he should hâve said: And 
difficult as it is for man to beheve that the Bible is a 
révélation, he arrives at that belief from a ten-fold greater 
difficulty of disbelieving that it is a révélation, for there 
are thousands of such things foretold in the Bible, as we 
hâve heretofore named, and we know it came to pass as it 
is there foretold, which makes it ten times more difficult 
to believe that it is not a révélation, for the things spoken 
of in the Bible, that we are capable to ascertain or per- 
ceive, are verified just as therein foretold. The Bible speaks 
mostly of the Israélites, and they and their existence are the 
living proofs of the truth of the Bible. Just as Isaiah 
foretold when he said: " Fear ye not, neither be afraid; 
" hâve not I told thee from that time and hâve declared 
" it, ye are my witnesses." Isa. 44:8. 



86 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE ANGEL THAT BALAAM's ASS SAW, AND HOW THE 

BEAST CAME TO SPEAK, AND WHAT KIND OF 

AN ANIMAL IT WAS. 

The question, how Balaam's ass came to speak, is a 
subject that has causée! a great deal of scoffing against the 
Bible. It is a subject that contains many other questions 
besides the speaking of the beast. 

The men that the king of Moab sent to Balaam 
stopped over night by him. God came to Balaam in the 
night and asked him who they were that were by him. 
The question is: 

ist. God knows everything; hence He must hâve 
known who the men were. Why, then, did He ask? 

2d. If God did ask who thèse men were, why did 
not Balaam tell Him that the king of Moab had sent them, 
that he, Balaam, should go and curse the Israélites 
instead of telling him, as he did: " Balak, the son of 
"'Zippor, king of Moab, had sent unto me: ' Behold 
"'the people that came out of Egypt; behold it has cov- 
" ' ered the face of the earth, and now come curse me 
"*them; maybe I shall be able to overcome them and 
" « drive them ofF.' " 

3d. God said: " Thou shalt not go with them; thou 
" shalt not curse the people», for they are blessed." Was 
God afraid that Balaam's cursing would nuUify His blessing? 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 87 

4th. Balaam, it seems, was complymg with and doing 
what God told him. The first time, He told Balaam not to go, 
and he did not go; the second time, He told him to go, and he 
went. Why then did God become indignant at his going? 

5th. Why did the angel corne out to be an adversary 
to him? 

6th. When Balaam said to the angel, if my going 
displeases you, I will return, why did the angel tell him 
to gô along with the men? 

yth. How could three men, Balaam and his two 
servants, ride on one ass?* 

8th. Even if it had been possible for the three to ride 
on one ass, such men that need two servants to w^ait upon 
them when they are on the way will not ride with their 
servants on the same beast, even if it had been possible. 

9th. If Balaam was such a man that could not travel 
without having two servants to wait upon him, hovv comes 
it that he himself arose in the morning and saddled his ass 
for himself and for his two servants to ride, as the Bible 
tells us he did? 

loth. How could the ass speak? 

To answer ail thèse questions, or to explain the enigma, 
we must not only understand the Hebrew words that are 
used therein, but we must also know the origin of the 
words, and the différent purposes for which the same words 
are used, especially the nouns, for nearly ail the proper 
nouns which we find in the Bible are dérivations from 



*The Bible tells us that he, Balaam, was riding- on his ass and his two servants with 
him. TheEnglish version says "were with him," but the verb " were " is not in the 
Hebrew Bible. We use the latter. 



SS A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

verbs or circumstances. For instance: The noun Isaac cornes 
trom the verb " laugh," Jacob cornes from the word " heel," 
as ail the names of Jacob's children, and other Biblical 
names. The word ••' Alohim," one of the names that lan- 
guage lias appropriated to the Deity, cornes from the word 
"Aie" (power), the plural of which is "Alohim" (powers). 
And we fînd that the word " Alohim " (of which the 
English translation is God) is often applied to man; as we 
fînd : God said to Moses, " He, Aaron, shall be to thee for 
" a mouth and thou shalt be to him for a God " (Alohim 
in Hebrew). Ex. 4:16. And Exodus, chapter 7, ist verse, 
says: " See, I hâve made thee for a God (Hebrew Alohim) 
" unto Pharaoh." And the word "Alohim" is very often 
applied, ail through the Bible, to judges and rulers. 

Man possesses two powers — the will and the mind. 
The will cornes from the body. The power of the mind is 
divine, and comes from the invisible but perceptible soûl, 
which is a part of the Creator; and the only name that is 
or can be applied to the Creator himself is the word 
"Jehovah," which dénotes Past, Présent and Future. The 
power of the mind makes man the image of his Creator. 
Maimonide, in the fîrst part of his Moureh Nebuchim, 
speaking of the sons of God (in Hebrew "Benai Alohim") 
who took the daughters of man, (Gen. 6:2,) says that the 
sons of God were the men that had made use of the 
power of their mind, as the sons of Seth, who were born 
after Adam ate of the fruit of knowledge. And in the 
days of Enos, the son of Seth, men began to call upon the 
Lord (Hebrew, "Je-ho-vah"). That is, they had begun to 
call upon or make use of the power of the mind, which is a 
part of the Lord "Je-ho-vah." 

We will now return to our subject, 

Balaam told the messensrers that the king: of Moab 



OF KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 89 

had sent to him that they should stay by him over night, 
and he would tell them what God would tell him. Hère, 
(in the Hebrew Bible) the word "Jehovah" stands for the 
Word God, and not " Alohim," because the word " Alohim " 
is applicable to the will and the mind. And what Balaam 
really said to the men that came to him, was, that they should 
stay over night, and he would consult with his mind 
(understanding) which comes from the soûl, part of Je-ho- 
vah, himself; therefore the word "Jehovah " is used there, 
and not the word " Alohim." 

The désire of Balaam's heart was to go with the men, 
but he had to consult with his mind to see if he could 
accomplish what was asked of him after he would go. 

In the night Balaam began to consult w^th his mind. 
The "Jehovah," (God — his mind) asked him: "Who are 
thèse men ? " They are not very great and honorable men ; 
and Balak himself is not a very great man — he is king only 
for the présent time (as the Bible tells, he was king at that 
time). He is not from a royal family. His father, Zippor, 
was no king; and the Moabites themselves are not a very 
honorable nation, if we take their founder into considération, 
who was born from the connection of a father and daugh- 
ter. To which the désire of Balaam's heart said: It makes 
no différence who or what they ail are; the object that they 
désire I shall accomplish, is very great. " The people 
" that came ont of Egypt cover the sight of the earth, 
" (that is, the whole world looks upon that people), and 
" now, if I curse that people, and overcome them, or only 
" drive them ofF, then the whole world will honor me," 
said Balaam's heart to his mind. To which the mind replied : 
" Thou shalt not go with them." And the heart said : "I 
need not go, I can curse them hère." To which the mind 
repHed: "Thou shalt not curse that people." "Why?" 
asked the heart. " Because they are blessed," answered the 



90 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

mind. " They are blèssed by a greater power than you 
possess. Your cursing will not afFect them ; and if it will 
not afïect them, then the whole world will laugh at you." 
Thèse, or such, was the conversations between Balaann and 
God (Jehovah — his mind), and that is what Balaam told 
the king of Moab in Num. 23: 20, 21 and 23. "And He 
"(God) blessed them, and I cannot reverse it. The Lord 
' fs w^ith them. God brought them out of Egypt. Surely, 
" there is no enchantment against Jacob, nor is there any 
" divination against Isreal." 

In the morning, Balaam told the messengers that his 
Jehovah (the mind) did not permit him to go v^ith them* 

Had he told them ail that w^hich his mind had told 
him, namely : that his mind did not let him go, because his 
cursing could hâve no efFect on the Israélites, then Balak 
w^ould not hâve sent the other messengers to him, instead of 
simply telling them that his mind did not allow him to go with 
them; implying that with others his mind would let him 
go. They told the king of Moab what Balaam told them. 
" He does not want to go with them;" hence, Balak sent 
more, and more honorable men to Balaam ; and when they 
came to him his God (Jehovah — mind) told him in the 
night the time when man can communicate with his mind 
the best. Had you told the first messengers that you could not 
go with them, because the Israélites are blessed, and your 
cursing can hâve no efFect npon them, the second messengers 
would not bave come. But, as they hâve corne to call you, you 
must go with them, for you cannot tell them now that your 
cursing will bave no efFect upon them. They will ask you 
why you bave not said so to the first messengers. Hence, 
" get up and go with them," and if you do not wish that 
the world shall laugh at you, " then you shall do what I 
will tell thee." 

"And Balaam rose up in the morning, saddled his ass 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 9I 

" and went with the princes of Moab. And God's anger 
" was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord stood 
" in his way for an adversary against him, and he was riding 
"upon his ass and his two servants with him." 

The Word, ass, is translated from the Hebrew word 
"H-m-r," pronounced " Chamoure," and the same three con- 
sonants are used for the word "Ciay," pronounced " Chômer," 
and the same word désignâtes the body, which is chiy, as 
well as the materials of which a thing is made of. The ass 
that Balaam saddled was his own heart, or will, which 
comes from the clay. That is, he resolved tô carry ont the 
dictâtes of his heart. He not only went, as his mind told 
him he must go, but he went with the intention of cursmg 
that people, and that is the meaning of what the Bible tells 
us. " He went with the princes of Moab," when they first 
came to Balaam. The Bible calls them the servants of 
Balak: "And Balaam said unto the servants of Balak," 
(Num. 22:18.) And on account of their success in inducing 
Balaam to go with them, the account thereof calls them 
princes. They beheved, inasmuch as he went with them, 
he would certainly curse that people, and it would accom- 
plish the purpose which they thought it would; and he 
went with them in the same belief, and that belief came 
from the dictâtes of his heart — the ass that he rode upon — 
and that ass nobody else but he himself could saddle for him 
to ride, and being that the heart made him go, as if it car- 
ried him, it says that he rode upon it. 

The ass says to Balaam : " Am not I thy ass, that 
" thou rode upon me from thy youth until this day ? " (He- 
brew version.) A m an certainly bas the same heart from 
the time that he is born until he dies. 

The word, servant, is hère translated from the Hebrew 
word " Naar," and means young, and is sometimes used to 



g2 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

designate a young servant, and the same word is sometimes 
used for the words, brought up. The two servants that it 
says were w^ith Balaam on the ass, were the understanding 
of his mind and désire of his heart. In Genesis, 7:21, it is 
said : " For the formation of man's heart is evil from his 
" youth." (The word, youth, is hère translated from the 
Hebrew word "Naar.") 

Thèse two servants of Balaam could not possibly hâve 
ridden upon any other ass than that upon which Balaam 
himself rode. 

The word, angel, is translated from the Hebrew word 
"Maalach," and the word " Maalach" comes from the word 
" Maalocho," a work. There are two questions about every 
thing that a man is to do. (That is, if it is anything that 
requires an understanding to do it.) 

First. Is the man willing to do it? 

Second. Is he capable to do it, or has he the power 
of mind to do it.^ 

The will comes from the heart; the ability comes 
from the mind. If the will and the mind coincide that the 
thing shall be done, the mind becomes the actor that does 
the work. It has the whole work done before the eyes 
can see, or the hands touch any part of the work. Hence, 
the mind is the actor, the " Maalach " (the angel) that does 
the " Maalocho" (the work). 

And if the mind is not satisfied that the work or thing 
shall be done, or if the mind understands that it can not be 
done, it makes no différence how great the will to do the 
thing may be, the thing can not be done, and the mind at 
last destroys the will. 

It happens very frequently that a man starts to do a 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 93 

thing without consulting his understanding. He undertakes 
to do it, because his heart prompts him to, but when he 
finds that his understanding tells or shows that it can not 
be done, he gives it up, or returns from his undertaking, 
and the giving up destroys the will — that is, the will stops 
prompting the man to do it. 

This was the condition in which Balaam was at the 
time his enigmatical angel (the mind), with his sword drawn 
(the power to destroy the will, which the mind possesses). 
The word sword is translated from the Hebrew word 
" h-r-b," pronounced '^ chereb," and that same word is used 
in the Hebrew language for the word " destroy," because 
the sword destroys. Balaam started to do a thing that was 
contrary to his understanding. 

riie mind (the enigmatical god) told him not to curse 
the people, because they were blessed by a greater power, 
and his cursing would hâve no effect upon them. Had he 
said that to the first messengers that the king of Moab 
sent to him, the second messengers would not bave come 
for him. His mind advised him to go with them because he 
had no excuse to give for not going, which advice was on 
condition that he should only do what the mind would tell 
him, and he rode out on his will to accomplish the désire 
of his heart — to curse the people; and to destroy that désire, 
the angel (the mind) had taken its sword (the power to 
destroy) and placed itself against the will. And when the 
will saw that its désire could not be accomplished, it refused 
to carry Balaam any further. He could not proceed, be- 
cause his will refused to carry him. He had neither mind 
nor will to proceed, nor could he return, for he had no 
excuse to ofFer to the Moabite chiefs who were with him. 
He could riot tell them that his god (the mind) did not 
permit him to go, because he told them to stay over night 



94 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



and he would consult with his mind. He, necessarily, must 
hâve told them in the morning that it permitted him to go. 
They probably would hâve done something worse to him 
than laugh. And thus he had a fence on each side of 
him. 

It often happens to man that the mind becomes inactive, 
duU and heavy. He feels a v^^eight upon it at such times. 
Balanm's mind was in that condition at the time in ques- 
tion, and the mind sav^ that Balaam smote liis allegorical 
ass, (probably by grumbling at or cursing his w^ill for 
bringing him to that unenviable condition,) and the mind 
having heard what Balaam said to the ass: If he had had 
a sword (the power ot the mind) in his hand he would 
hâve killed the ass (the will). How would he hâve done 
it? By doing what his understanding would tell to him 
to do.* 

Then the mind began to act. The Lord opened the 
eycs of Balaam. The word " opened " is translated from 
the Hebrew word " Gai," which means " rolled ofF." 
(" Posach " is opened.) 

And the same word that in Hebrew dénotes eye, is 
also used for the word fountain or spring, and the mind is 
often called in the Hebrew language an inexhaustible foun- 
tain. Hence, we say that the heaviness was rolled ofF 
from Balaam's fountain (the mind), and it began to work, 
and told Balaam to go along with the men, but that he 
should do what it, the mind, the worker, the angel, would 
tell him, which we are told Balaam did. 



*To call the mind by the name of sword, is often done in the Hebrew lan- 
guage. The Polish and Russian Israélites, who use a great many Hebrew 
words and phrases in their jargon, say of a man that is well educated and has 
a powerf ul mind, he is a " Chereve Chado," a sharp sword. Maimonide say s, 
and he refers to other s who said the same, that the "turmn^flaming sword 
"• which God hath placed to watch the way to the tree of life " means man's 
uuderstanding, which cannot find the way to it. It tums hither and thither 
nbout the subject in question. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 95 

He told Balak his, Balaam's, cursing or his power ot 
enchantment and divination had no efFect upon the Israél- 
ites, because God had blessed them. (See Num., ciiap. 23.) 

Moses, the authors of the Tahxiud, Maimonide and ail 
the eminent men that hâve existed in Israël up to the 
présent time, agrée that no man, while living, ever saw 
God or an angel. What the prophets hâve seen, they sav^ 
either in a trance or in a dream while asleep, or in a pro- 
phétie dream which probably w^as something like what we 
call a trance, and could take place in day-time while awake. 
If Balaam had seen something under thèse circumstances 
which he thought was God or an angel, and a:tually be- 
lieved that God told him to go with the chiefs of Moab, 
he would hâve said to the angel, I must go; God told me 
to go; you cannot stop nie from going; the same as he 
told to Balak and to his messengers: '• I cannot do other- 
" wnse than my God tells me," instead of saying to the 
angel as he did: " If it displeases thee, I will return." 

The doings and sayings of Balaam are recorded in the 
Bible in this enigmatical manner for the purpose of 
enabling man to develop an understanding of the powers 
that he possesses. It is agreed by nearly ail the Jewish 
commentators, including the authors of the Talmud, that 
when man subjugates his wrill to serve his mind, and ap- 
propriâtes thèse two powers to study divine things, his 
mind is then called the Spirit of God. 

Maimonide says, and supports what he says by what 
others who preceded him hâve said, that by the spirit 
described, David wrote his Psalms, Daniel wrote what he 
did, and ail the writing that we find in the Bible, except 
the Books of Moses and the prophets; and they also say 
that when a man appropriâtes his mind wholly to serve 
his body, he is a beast in the shape of a man. And if we 



96 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

consider what the Bible tells us of Balaam's sayings and 
doings after he came to the king of Moab, in accordance 
with what has heretofore been said, we can plainly iinder- 
stand what we are told and gain some knowledge from it. 

Three times, from three différent places, has Balaam 
attempted to curse the Israélites, and thought that, by 
offering the bullocks and rams which he did, God would 
enable him to curse or injure the Israélites. The fîrst two 
times, it tells us in the English Bible, that he went up 
into a high place; but the word high place is translated 
from the Hebrew word " shefFee," silently or meditatively. 

It also tells us that each time that Balaam went ofF, 
God met him and put a word in his mouth. And the 
third time, it says: " And Balaam saw that it pleased the 
" Lord to bless Israël; he went not as at other times to 
" seek for enchantments, but set his face towards the wilder- 
"ness." That is^ he wanted to see the future of Israël, 
which is obscure, as a thing that is in or behind a wilder- 
ness, and enchantment can tell nothing of the future So 
we see that he spoke of the Israélites' future. Hence, he 
did not go to seek enchantment. And it does not say that 
God put a word in his mouth as it does in the other instances; 
but it says: "And the Spirit of God came upon him." 
That is, the will and the mind; and thereby foretold the 
remote future of Israël. It says : " Which saw the vision 
"of the Almighty falling into a trance, but having his eyes 
" open. How good are thy tents, O, Jacob! thy taberna- 
" clés, O, Israël ! Water shall fîow from his buckets, and 
" his seed shall be in many waters." 

The above was spoken in the future tense, and we see 
that what was said is true. The word water is frequently 
used for the law of God, as " living waters will come eut 
" of Jérusalem ;" *' Ho, every one that is thirsty, come ye 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 97 

*•• to the waters. * * Incline thine ear and corne to me." 
Isa. chap. 54. 

The law of God, the water that Balaam spoke of, or 
Moses wrote about, flowed and flows now from Israel's buck- 
ets, and nearly ail the people on earth drink of it. It makes 
no différence whether Balaam said it, or Moses or any one 
else simply wrote it, the présent time proves beyond a 
doubt that it is true. " According to time, it shall be said of 
" Jacob and of Israël, what God hath done." The only 
answer that the world has to the questions of the inde- 
structibility and endurance of Israël is, it is the work of 
God. 



98 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION OF MAN. 

" And God said, let us make man in our image as our 
" likeness" — (Hebrew); " After our likeness " — (English). 

The account of the création of man is replète with 
questions. 

First. To whom did God speak when he said, " Let 
" us create man?" 

Second. According to what we know and b^iieve oi 
God, He bas neither image nor likeness, 

The first question cannot be answered by saying there 
are now, or were at the time in question, more than one 
God, and that he said to the others, " let us make man in 
" our likeness;" neither can it be said that He spoke to 
angels, " because it right thereafter follows: " And God 
" created man in HIS OWN image, in the image of God 
" created He him." 

The consultation about the création of man was with 
others, and the plan was given out that man should be 
made in the image of ail with whom the consultation was 
held about the making of man. He was to be made " in 
" Our image." How cornes it that he was made in the 
image of One only? God created the man in His " Ovvn 
image." 

Third. In the same verse it says: " In the image 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 99 

" of God created He him, maie and female created He 
them." 

From the account it cannot apparently be ascertained 
whether God made " him," man, alone, or maie and female 
at the same time. And it cannot be said that He made 
the maie fîrst, and the female after that, and the account 
of the création of maie and female applies to two separate 
créations, because we hâve a subséquent account which tells 
hovv the female in question came into existence. Neither 
can the cause of thèse questions be laid to the writer of 
the account of the création by saying, '' he wrote as he 
understoou it," as is said by some in regard to the apparent 
questions about the earth and its luminaries, because the 
questions themselves show that they are not from a cause 
of ignorance or error, but are apparent and willful contra- 
dictions, if they are not subjects that hâve some hidden 
meanings within themselves. 

The key to the answer to ail thèse questions is^n 
man himself, and in the word création. Every animal con- 
sists of and has v^àthin itself four éléments, namely : earth, 
w^ater, air, and fire or beat. Man, in addition to thèse four 
éléments which he also has, possesses a fifth élément which 
enables him to articulate, reason and invent, and that élément 
is called " soûl" oy the language of man. 

Suppose A, B, C and D are working-men, and work 
for a man by the name of E. The employer says let A 
do this, let B do that, let C do the other thing, and let D 
help A. ... 

Each of thèse workmen would, it is reasonable to be- 
lieve, know what their employer meant, and no one could 
reasonably find fault with the language that E used in 
placing his men to work. But if ail the four men were to 



lOO A COI>LECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

work together at one and the same thing, and E, the em- 
ployer, should work with them, he would certainly hâve to 
say : Let us do, or make, this or that — " Let us make 
man," or anything else. And thèse are the same words 
that the writer of the bibHcal account of création says God 
hath used to His workers, though God used no words at 
ail, any more than the heart of man uses words when it 
speaks to him. He said: " Let the earth bring forth;" 
" Let the waters bring forth abundantly;" " Let the air 
(the firmament) divide;" '' Let light be in the firmament." 
Thus the employer (God) prdered each of His workers to 
attend to his own work, and when it came to the making 
of man, a work wherein the employer (God) Himself had 
to work with His workers, the four éléments that hâve not 
only helped to make man, but hâve also donated of them- 
selves materials for the body of man, — to them hath God 
said : " Let us make man in our own image and likeness." 
An image is that which we can see with our eyes, as an 
idol or a statue or a likeness is something that we can see 
with our eyes. We can make a likeness from words that 
we cannot see at ail, but can readily comprehend. 

Air and beat we cannot see. We can only feel it. 
We cannot make an image or a statue from air nor from 
beat, but we can make a likeness of it on the mind by 
proper words. So long as the four éléments are together 
in man he resembles beat and resembles air. We can 
feel and understand that he bas thèse éléments in him, and 
when thèse invisible éléments départ from man ana leave 
the image (the statue), we then see that it is earth and we 
return it. 

Thus we find that man was made in the image of those 
that helped to make him, and to whom God said: " Let 
us make man." But man was not only made — he was 
also created. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. lOI 

We say, Dr. Mott invented the telegraph; the men 
who dug the holes, put up the posts and wires, and hâve 
done ail the work that is perceptible, we say made the 
telegraph. The work of the inventer is the invisible 
part thereof, or the power which performs the work. 
The différence between invention and création is, that the 
former must hâve materials, or power; the inventor only 
régulâtes the power and appropriâtes it for a certain pur- 
pose; and the latter is without materials and without any 
power, except that of the Creator him self. 

It will be noticed that the word " made " is used in 
speaking of the firmament, of the sun and moon, and of 
animais in gênerai, except when it speaks of man: " And 
God made the firmament. And God made the two great 
lights. And God made the beasts of the earth." 

In speaking of man, both the word " made " or 
" make," and the word " created " is used. In speaking of 
the visible part of man to the workers, the éléments which 
had the power the Creator gave them, and which power 
the language of man calls " the laws of nature, the word 
" made " is used : " Let us make." But after the workers 
hâve performed their part, they hâve put up their visible 
part of the telegraph, it became necessary for the inventor, 
Dr. Mott, to put in the invisible part, to demonstrate 
whether it would accomplish what was intended, i, e.^ 
what the account of the création in question says that God 
did after the éléments had produced the visible part of 
man, God put into him the invisible part — the soûl — which 
is not made, but created, because it was not made of 
materials, nor by any power which already existed, except 
the power of the Creator Himself. 

The reason why the word " created " is used in speak- 
ing of the créatures which the waters hâve produced, and 



I02 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

not the Word *' made," as in speaking of the créatures 
that the earth has produced is, becaiise the latter had the 
productive power in itself, while it was yet under the 
waters. The Creator gave the power to the earth at the 
time it was crcated, as we are lold by the first verse of 
the chapter in question: " God created the heaven and 
the earth." The word created, is making and giving to 
it the power which it needs to perform the purpose for 
which it was made; but we do not find the word cre- 
ated anywhere in connection with the seas, except when 
they were ordained to produce the créatures which they 
(the seas) did produce. Therefore is the word created 
used in speaking of the créatures that the waters hâve 
produced. 

The power to produce animais was given to the earth 
on the sixth day; therefore the word made was used 
in speaking of the animais which the earth had produced. 
Man is an animal and an élément. He is an animal in his 
body, therefore the word made is used in speaking of 
his body: " Let us make man." And he is an élément in 
his mind. His mind produces ideas, and with the ideas 
which it produces, he appropriâtes powers which are not 
within himself, nor his, and makes them serve his will nnd 
purpose. And it is this that makes man a type of his own 
Creator. 

In speaking of that elementary power which was given 
to man, the word created is used instead of the word 
made. 

The next question, in the biblical account of the cré- 
ation of man, is: Did God create " him " (man) first, or 
did He create " them," maie and female, at one and the 
same time? 

The pronouns of the third person, masculine and pos- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I03 

sessive, which stand for the names of the créatures in the 
first chapter of the English Bible, are mistranslations, 

" And every winged fowl after his kind.'* The words 
" after his kind," are translated from the Hebrew word 
" Lmin hw," (prouounced leminahow). The " h " dénotes 
the féminine pronoun her, and the " w " dénotes the mas- 
cuHne pronoun his ; and when the " h " and " w," as 
pronouns, are joined to one word, then they represent the 
common gender, " its." The phrase in question should 
read: "After its kind," instead of " his kind." 

" Let the earth bring forth Hving créatures after his 
kind." The last three words, " after his kind," are trans' 
lated from the Hebrew word " L-m-in-h," pronounced 
leminoh; and the proper translation of the word into . the 
English language is, " after her kind." The Hebrew word 
that dénotes the English words, " after his kind," is " 1-m- 
i-n-w," and is pronounced " leminow." The pronoun of 
the masculine gender, third person, singular number, pos- 
sessive case, is not used in the Hebrew Bible to represent 
any ofthe créatures that the waters and the earth hâve 
brought forth. In the twenty-fîfth verse, speaking of cattle 
and other living créatures (except creeping things), the pro- 
noun " her " is used in the Hebrew Bible ; and in speaking 
of creeping things, it uses the pronoun " its." To make a 
proper translation, it would read : " And God made the 
beast of the earth after her kind, and cattle after her kind, 
and everything that creepeth upon the earth after its kind." 

It certainly cannot be reasonably disputed that, if ani- 
mais were ever created as the Bible says they were, they 
must hâve been created maie and female, and why the 
masculine pronoun is not used is for the reason that the 
maie parent of an animal cannot be traced, and does not 



I04 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

even seem to know or ever recognize his own ofFspring, as 
the female parent does for a while, and the first-born is also 
counted from the mother; and as it is imperceptible to the 
eye which is the maie and which the female of creeping 
créatures, it therefore uses a pronoun of the common gender, 
or " its," which, in the English language, is used in the 
place of a noun of the common gender. 

Maie and female of mankind were also created at one 
and the same time, but as the genealogy of man is traced 
after the father, and he, the maie parent, is the head of the 
family, therefore the masculine pronoun is made use of in 
speaking of mankind in the subject that we are now con- 
sidering, instead of the féminine as it does in speaking of 
other animal créatures ; and the reason that it says : " maie 
" and female created He them," after it says: " He created 
" him," is that the maie and the female of ail other créatures 
were created separate from one another, and that is why 
their maie parents hâve no natural attachment for their 
ofFspring, or for the female parent ot their ofFspring; and 
the body of the man, Adam, and the woman, Eve, were 
at first made in one — they were both together — therefore 
it says: " created He him, maie and female created He them,' 
and thus it is that the maie parent of mankind has a natural 
attachment for his ofFspring and for the mother of his ofF- 
spring. 

" And He took one of his ribs " and made a woman, as 
we learn in the second chapter of Genesis, refers to the 
séparation of the female from the maie. 

The Word " rib " is also a mistranslation. It is trans- 
lated from the Hebrew word " Zle," (pronounced " Tzella,") 
and dénotes a side. The same word is used in the Hebrew 
Bible to apply to sides of the Tabernacle, as " Shimei 
*' went along on the hill's side" (2d Sam. 16:13); "The 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. IO5 

" door of the middle chamber was in the right SIDE;" 
" He covered them on the inside;" "And he covered them 
" on the inside with \vood ;" " The two leaves of the door." 
(i Kings, chap. 6.) 

The words "side" and "leaves" are translated from the 
same Word that " rib " is translated from. If the EngHsh 
version of the Bible would read: " And He (God) took one 
" of his sides," instead of " one of his ribs," which, if prop- 
erly translated, would read so, the idea that Adam and Eve 
were created or made in one body, and were so until they 
were separated and a soûl put in each of them, it w^ould not 
seem so strange to those who know nothing of the " Tal- 
mud," as it may seem to them, because they may think 
that man always did believe and understand that part of the 
Bible as they do now. 

Maimonide, in his " Moureh Nebuchim," part 2d, chap- 
ter 30th, says the same tliing^ and further, that their backs 
were joined together; and that ail this was done during what 
is called the sixth day of création; and that nothing was 
changed after the time which is called the sixth day of 
création. 

We may hâve occasion to speak more upon the same 
subject in the next chapter. 

The fact that the taking of the part, or rib, from 
Adam and the making of the woman thereof, is told in 
the second chapter, and the création of the man is told 
in the fîrst chapter, may be taken, by some, to contra- 
dict the idea and belief that they were both created at one 
and the same time; we therefore call the attention of the 
reader to the fact that the second, chapter is a brief of 
and référence to the first chapter. It says: " Thèse are 
" the générations of the heavens and of the earth when 



io6 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



" they were created in the day that the Lord God made 
" the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field 
" before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field 
" before it grew." 

The garden of Eden, the eating of the tree of knowl- 
edge, and the sending out the man from the garden, was 
ail done before the time that is called the seventh day 
of création. (The aiithor refers to it briefly for the pur- 
pose of coming again to the man and of giving his 
history up to that time, and to continue it further.) 
Nothing was added to or changed in the création after 
the day of rest nor during that day. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I07 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE GARDEN OF EDEN; THE SERPENT; THE EATING 

FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE; THE 

TREE OF LIFE. 

The subject which we are now to consider is one of 
the many biblical subjects that hâve a visible body (the 
words of which it is composed), and a seul — the invisible 
meaning that the whole subject has, and, w^e may say, 
éléments of that of which the words are composed. It is 
one of the subjects of which Maimonide, in the préface to 
his " Moureh Nebuchim," says: " Language is unable to 
" supply words to express what little the human mind is 
" able to perceivcc" And being that it is as that great 
philosopher has said, we will not attempt to convey to the 
reader the little knowledge which we believe that we pos- 
sess in regard to the sublime and infinité subject in ques- 
tion, by commencing to speak of, or examine, its invisible 
or infinité part; but we will fîrst examine the body (the words 
as they show from their outside), and see if we cannot 
reconcile it with the human understanding of the subject 
in question, and that may aid us in our attempt to make a 
key-hole to the invisible part thereof. 

Let us, therefore, for a time, assume that God did 
plant a " garden eastward of Eden;" and that there was 
in it " the tree of life, and the tree of knowing good and 
" evil ;" and that God placed the man in the garden and 



Io8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

told him that he (the man) might eat of ail the trees which 
were in the garden except " of the tree of the knowledge 
" of good and evil;" and that the man disobeyed the order 
of God and ate of the tree of knowledge; and that oui* 
ancestral Adam, because he ate of that tree, became as we 
are — mortal, and had the knowledge or power to discern 
between good and evil. Let us question none of thèse 
things. 

But what follows? " And the Lord God said, Behold, 
" the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; 
" and now he may put forth his hand and take also of the 
" tree of life and eat, and live forever. Therefore the 
" Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to 
" till the ground from whence he was taken." 

Hère are questions w^hich cannot be overlooked. Ad- 
am, after he ate of the tree of knowledge, became w^hat w^e 
are now — mortal — and understood the différence between 
good and evil; but v^^e are not as God; neither can we be 
as God, if we could live forever! If living forever, in our 
présent state, could make us be what God is, why are we 
not what our moral perception tells us He is," while we do 
live? Our powers can certainly not be compared to His 
powers. We know that we, or our powers, grow in us 
stronger until we reach the middle âge, and after that, we 
and they — our powers — become weaker and weaker each and 
every year. And when one of us lives a few years above the 
natural or usual âge of man, he becomes a mère living 
skeleton, and the longer he lives, the weaker he grows. 
And if Adam was as we are, which we hâve great reason 
to believe, was not like God while he did live, how could 
he become like God, if he could or would hâve lived for- 
ever? According to the laws of nature, he could only be 
now a living skeleton. Hence we do not comprehend why 



OR KEY TO SCKIPTURE. IO9 

God prevented Adam fiom enabling hirnseU to live for- 
ever. If Adam had been alive to-day, he would be a living 
witness of ail that the Bible says; and that, of itself, would 
hâve been of great benefît to man, whom God had and 
doth now désire to benefit. Wanting him to know 
of His — God's — doings, and throiigh this knowled^e of His 
doings know Him, as He commands us in the Bible: 
'' And thou shalt know the Lord." And for that purpose, 
the prophets were sent to man. (The garden of Eden is 
connected with the belief of a future life, and of which we 
will speak in a subséquent chapter.) 

The key to the questions, why God prevented Adam 
from living forever, and how he (Adam) could be " like 
one of us," or like God, is found in man's well-founded 
and more than reasonable belief in a future life, or in a 
life after the death of the body. Let us therefore reason this 
belief under a supposition. We will lirst consider the nég- 
ative side of the question and see in what condition man 
could be upon the earth, if he would positively know the 
thing, of which he now only thinks and believes, the same 
as he is positive of death. 

Suppose that the sight and compréhension of man are 
illimited, we will say he knows that there is no future life 
for him after the death of the body, and that he is as sure of 
it as he is sure of death itself. His condition then, while he 
is on earth, could be no more exalted than the condi- 
tion of one who is to be hung, and is sure there is no 
hope to escape the calamity, and knows the day and hour 
when he is to sufFer death. The more protracted the time 
is from the period that he becomes sure that he will be 
executed, to the day of his exécution, the more he becomes 
reconciled to his fate, and the less he thinks of it, and the 
more care must be taken not to give him an opportunity 
to take his own life. Givc him a pistol, knife or poison 



IlO A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

and he will make the day of exécution corne at once. 
Man would even be worse than the case just cited, if he 
could be as sure of his end and hâve no more hope in the 
future than the man in the convict's cell, for the latter has 
no need ot troubhng himself for the necessities that are 
requh-ed to sustain hfe, while the former must. In short, 
man would no more stay upon the earth and await the 
day of his natural death, than the one that knows that he 
must be executed on a certain named day. He would not 
wait for that day, if he had a chance to take his Hfe before 
the day designated by law cornes. Life would, in gênerai, 
be a burden to man; a mother would see ail the trouble 
that her child would hâve to endure during this life, at the 
time that she gave birth to her babe, and the best thing 
that she could do for the child would be to take its life at 
once, and thus deliver it from pain and suffering. Death 
would be considered a relief to man, the same as when one 
sufFers from a long sickness, and it is known for a fact that 
there is no other relief for him but death; and when the 
latter comes, it is accepted by ail as a welcome visitor. 

We may be told that there are some men who say 
they do not believe in a future existence, yet life is very 
dear to them though they do not believe in any happiness 
after death. There are two answers to this view. 

First. They only say they do not believe it, because 
they are unable to expiai n or understand how a man can 
live after he is dead, and they do not désire to form, or to 
say they form, a belief upon biblical doctrine, because 
that class of men are anti-biblical, and their désire for 
life is sustained by the belief of the majority, or the gên- 
erai belief of mankind. 

vSecondly. The subject is only a belief, and not a 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. III 

universally kiiown or positive fact, the same as death is, 
upoii which our supposition is based. 

Let us now consider the affirmative side of the ques- 
tion and learn vvhat the chances for man to remain on 
earth w^ould be. 

Suppose that man is as sure of a future as he is of 
deatli, (and he is as sure of it as he is that there is an 
inhabited country beyond the océan, though he was never 
there,) and as thèse arguments are based on the supposi- 
tion that the sight and compréhension of mankind are 
illimited, we can therefore say that man could communicate 
with his friends who hâve departed from the earth and are 
Hving in the land of our behef, and v^ould knov^ that their 
happiness is greater than the human mind can compre- 
hend, — would man, under thèse circumstances, stay long on 
the earth? Would he not at once separate his soûl from 
the body and migrate to the world of everlasting bliss? 
Would not a mother as soon as she gave birth to a child 
send it to the land of eternal happiness rather than to keep 
it upon the earth subject to ail the w^oes and troubles to 
which the body is heir? Would there be a mother foolish 
enough to stay on earth long enough to bring forth a 
child? 

The ansv^ers to thèse questions are so obvions to every 
one that we need not answer them. 

Thus we see that, w^hether there is or there is not a 
future State of existence for man, he would not stay on 
earth where his Creator placed him if he could know ail 
that he is now unable to know. The power of discrimin- 
ating between good and evil, which man naturally possesses, 
would cause him to abandon the place where his Creator 
placed him and journey to a place where his condition 
would be improved. 



iI2 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Adam knew of the place that we, his posterity, believe 
in, for it is said that he was in it, but did not know how to 
separate the soûl from the body. He never saw a dead 
person and did not know what death was, and we do not 
know of a tree the fruit of which can give to man eternal 
life. God said that if Adam should by chance eat of the 
fruit of the tree of life he w^ould be as *' one of us," — 
spirits — and being a fact that we do know there are trees 
whose fruit is what we call poisonous, it séparâtes the souI 
from the body. It is everlasting life to the soûl, which is 
a part of God, but is death to the body. Consequently we 
say that the tree of life or its fruit was what we. call poi- 
sonous, and if Adam had eaten of it would hâve separated 
his soûl from his body, and thus live a spiritual life and be 
as " one of us " (a spirit), and thus nullify part of the pur- 
pose of God's création. He (God) therefore sent Adam 
out of the garden and placed " the Cherubs and the Flaming 
" Sword, which turns to watch (or keep) the way to the 
" tree of life;" and the fact that we are told that Adam 
was to die on the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge, 
and he lived nme hundred and thirty years after he was 
sent out of the garden of Eden, proves that the word 
" life " means a spiritual life, and the word " day " does 
not mean the time that is required for the earth to revolve 
around the sun, neither the day that is known to man on 
earth; and yet Adam died on the day that he ate of the 
tree of knowledge. 

To describe what death is, would be to say that man 
loses his sight, the mind forsakes him., the body becomes 
inactive and cannot remain in the land of the living, but 
must be returned to the ground from whence it was taken. 

That change took place in Adam on the very day 
that Adam ate of the tree of knowledge, or in the time 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 



that Adam took for a day, that is, during the time that the 
suii was visible to' raao. As soon as he ate of the tree in 
question he became as we are, possessing the sensations of 
good and evil and the power of vision and compréhension 
was taken from him, lie was afraid, it was said, and hid. 
The power of compréhension and sight left him. Hence 
he hid himself. He no longer saw or comprehended that 
there was no j^lace in which he could hide from God. 
The feeling of evil came upon him, and he w^as removed 
to the ground from whence he was taken. He could no 
longer stay in the land of the living spirit, any more than 
a dead body can stay in the land of living bodies. He 
became dead in spirit. Hence, as far as Adam was con- 
cerned, or knew of death, he was dead in spirit. He kne^v 
nothing of a bodily death, for the simple reason that he 
never saw one, and hence thought himself dead the same as 
we do when the body dies. The fact that he lived a bodily 
life of nine hundred and thirty years, is évidence that God 
meant an epoch, or time, which he calls a day, and a'S no 
man lived one thousand years, it may therefore be pre- 
sumed, as King David did présume, that a day of the 
Lord is at least one thousand years. Hence, as far as Adam 
knew of a day, he died, or the change took place in him, 
on the day that he knew of, and the death of his body took 
place within the day of the Lord, which is no less than one 
thousand years, and the life that man now lives on earth, 
is the spiritual death that Adam died. Genesis 6:5 reads: 

" And the Lord saw that the evil of Adam (man) 
" is very great in the earth, and that every formation of 
" the resolutions of his heart is only evil the whole day." 
We bave hère given the Hebrew text: 

First. Because the English version of the Bible 
rcads: " Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart." 



114 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

and we know that the heart neither imagines nor thinks. 

Secondly. In the Hebrew Bible it reads: " The 
" WHOLE DAY," and the EngUsh Bible reads, "continually." 
The words " ail day " are expressed in the English Bible 
by the word "continually," and the words " ail day," or 
" continually," embrace the whole time from the period that 
Adam was created until the time that God resolved to 
bring the flood, which was after Noah was five hundred 
years old, and that embraces a period of one thousand 
five hundred and fifty-six years, viz : From Adam to Seth 
one hundred and thirty, from Seth to Enos one hundred 
and five, from Enos to Cainan ninety, from Cainan to 
Mahalaleel seventy, from Mahalaleel to Jared sixty-five, 
from Jared to Enoch one hundred and sixty-two, from 
Enoch to Methusaleh sixty-two, from Methusaleh to Lam- 
ech one hundred and eighty-seven, from Lamech to Noah 
one hundred and eighty-two, from Noah to the time he 
had his three sons five hundred, and the whole of this 
time is called a day. From that we may contemplate what 
is meant by a day of the clays of création! And the fact 
that the account of création tells us that there had been 
three eveninsTS and three mornino^s before the sun was 
created, is évidence that the days of which the biblical 
account of création speaks are différent epochs than which 
it takes the earth to revolve around the sun. 

If the epoch of a day is no less than one thousand 
years, then the night must also be of an equal length of 
time, consequently the six days and six nights spoken of 
in the biblical account of création could hâve been no less 
than six thousand years of day and six thousand years of 
night, or twelve thousand years in ail, and probably a great 
deal longer time, as we see of the day spoken of in the 
time of Noah, which is one thousand five hundred and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



fîfty-six years, and that may be but part of a day, for one 
thousand years are but a part of the day spoken of by the 
Creator Himself, or known but to Himself, and spoken of 
by man; and during the unknown length of time that the 
six days of création includes, but which can be • no less than 
twelve thousand years. And during that^ time, and the 
time that the earth was under water, which is, from the 
time that it was created until the waters were gathered ofï 
from it — could form itself in the water — ail that the science 
of geology bas discovered and which proves that the earth 
and some créatures that were on the earth, as well as 
plants, hâve existed on and in the earth longer than six 
thousand years or less, which time is counted from the 
time that man bas lived upon earth, and no relies of any 
human being bave as yet been found which scientifically 
prove that man existed on the earth before the biblical ac- 
count of création; and therefore we maintain that science, 
instead of disproving the Bible, simply disproves the pre- 
tended knowledge that some men say they bave of the 
Bible. The ancient biblical Tewish scholars bave said that, 
without the knowledge of natural science, man cannot un- 
derstand the Bible, and therefore they hâve understood the 
former as well as the latter. 

We bave wandered away from the subject of this 
chapter for the purpose of fulfilling the promise we made 
in a former chapter, as to the length of the days of créa- 
tion, and to see how it agrées with the scientifîc geological 
discoveries. Having had an opportunity to fulfîll that 
promise in connection with the subject of this chapter, we 
bave done so, and Vv^ill now return to our subject proper. 

We bave shown from the outside part, or the body of 
the subject in question, that if Adam had eaten of the tree 
of life bis posterity would not be on earth to tell the fact that 
there ever was ©n earth such a créature as man, and hâve 



I l6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

also explained the death that Adam c^ied on the day that 
he ate of the tree of knowledge; and that everything took 
place as the words or body of that part of the bibHcal ac- 
count says; and if we or any man could, or ever did, know 
the place where the garden in which the tree of knowledge 
and the tree of life were planted, we would say that we 
hâve accomplished our purpose, and abandon that subject. 
But as the garden in question is unknown to man, of the 
présent âge, we will endeavor to open up the subject upon 
which the main body of argument is built, and demonstrate 
if the spirit thereof will indicate to us the location of the 
garden in question, and make that the subject of the chap- 
ter following. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 



CHAPTER XV. 

WHERE THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS, AND WHAT IT IS. 

WHAT THE SERPENT IS, OR WHAT THE HIDDEN 
MEANING OF THESE WORDS IS. 

" And the Lord God planted a gaiden eastward in 
Eden." This is the way it reads in the English version 
of the Bible. We will hâve to refer to the Hebrew words 
as we proceed, hence we will not insert them hère. 

To say that there is a garden eastward in Europe, 
woiild be évidence that he who said or wrote it must 
hâve meant either east of Europe or in the east part of 
Europe. The Hebrew text of the Bible reads : "A garden 
" in Eden of the east," or " from the east." The word 
eastward is translated from the Hebrew word " K-d-m," 
(pronounced kedem,) with the prefix of the letter M, 
which means of, or from. 

The word " Edn " means time. In Daniel, 7:25, it 
says: " Until a time and times." The word time is there 
translated from the Hebrew word " Edn," and the word 
times from the Hebrew word " Ednin," (pronounced edo- 
nin.) The " in " forms the plural, times. The word "Ed" 
is an adverb of time, until, and a répétition of the same 
word with the letter I after the first one, as " Edi-ed," 
means forever. Hence we say, and we hâve no fear of being 
successfully contradicted, that the word Edn means time. 
We Write the word as it is in Hebrev/, without the E after 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



the D.) Hence we say that the biblical account of the 
garden in question say s that " God planted a garden in 
time," 

The Word " Eastward " is translated from the Hebrew 
Word " Mkedm " (pronounced Mekedem). There are no 
vowels m that word in the Hebrew language. The orig- 
inal word is '* k-d-m," which means, before. The letter 
M which is prefixed to the word means " from." The 
prefix and the word itself mean " from before," 
instead of eastward, though tliat word is sometimes used 
for and with the word east, because the sun is seen in 
" M-s-r-h," east, and that word comes from the word 
" S-r-h," shining. M is a prefix to the word, and the 
meaning of the word is from, shining. 

It is, we heheve, theretore, very reasonable to con- 
clude that the bibhcal account of the garden in question 
says that man came into existence, or means to say that 
before man came into existence God planted a garden " In 
Time " (Mekedem, Heb.), and in that garden God placed 
the man, and that the tree of life and the tree of knowing 
good and evil were planted in the garden. That garden 
still exists and will exist in ail times that man shall remain 
on the earth. 

A garden is a place wherein différent plants, fruits and 
flowers are growing, and usually an enclosed place. 

Man's mind is very productive; the finest idéal plants, 
fruits and fîowers are growing in it, as well as the tree of 
spiritual life and the tree of knowing good and evil. It 
bas been demonstrated in the former chapter that the 
power of discriminating between good and evil would make 
man remove himself from the earth into the habitation of 
spirits, if he could see or know the way to the tree or place 



1 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I19 

of spiritual life, and for the purpose that he (nian) shall not 
knovv thereof, so long as it is the will of his Creator to keep 
him on earth, the Cherubim with the flaming svvord which 
turns ever}^ way was placed " to keep the way of the tree 
of life." A cherub is represented to the eye as a bird 
with long wings; it represents swiftness. No man ever 
saw one, dead or alive, except what the prophets hâve seen 
in their prophétie visions, and the golden Cherubs that were 
placed over the mercy seat. However, it always represents 
swiftness , and there is not a thing within the knowledge 
of nian that is swifter, or that can fly as high as mans' 
mind can. In chapter thirteen, while speaking of the 
" angel and the sword in his hand," which stood in the 
way of Balaam, we hâve demonstrated and explained that 
the mind of man is called angel and sword, and will not 
therefore enter into it hère; but say that the mind of man is 
the " Cherub and flaming sword that turns every way and 
keeps the Avay to the tree of life," hidden from man, as 
was demonstrated in the preceding chapter. If man could 
be as sure of the tree of (place of spiritual) life as he is " of 
the tree of knowing good (the life of the body on earth) 
and evil," (the death of the body), he would not stay o;i 
earth. The instability and the turning of man's mind 0.1 
the subject of spiritual life, or future existence, is whcA. 
makes man choose the good of the bodily life, and drcr.d 
the known evil of the bodily death. Had it not bccn f )r 
this, and for the fear of disobeying the order of tlie Crc- 
ator, that man shall till the earth until he shall havc to 
be returned to it, mankind would, long beforc this tii.nc, 
bave migrated into " the tree of (place of spirituel) 
hfe." 

Man " dresses," (tills or cultivâtes) his mind, (Edcn, 
the garden of time), the same as he does the ground. if 
he neglects to cultivate the latter, it produces bad fruil, cr 



I20 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

no fruit at ail, and the resiilt of his neglect is, the body 
bas notbing to live upon, and if be neglects to cultivate 
tbe mind, it produces no food for tbe spirit to live upon 
ni tbe everlasting garden of time (Edn). 

A penetrating key-bole may also be made into tbe 
four rivers wbicb w^ent out of Edn, or tbe one river tbat 
v^ent out from " Edn " to v^ater tbe garden, and from 
tbence it separated nito four beads (as tbe " gold bdellium 
and tbe onyx stone, of tbe land of Havilab "). But v^'e 
bave seen no opening to it, made by any one tbat bas pre- 
ceded us, and we cannot proceed furtber tban tbey did, 

It is twiligbt, and tbe eve before Sabbatb — time and 
necessity for tbe mind to rest. We bave opened a key- 
bole in tbe subject, large enougb for tbe reader wbo bas 
penetrative sigbt to observe and look into tbe subject as 
far as bis sigbt will enable bim, and will conclude tbe 
subject by boring a bole into tbe word " Serpent," wbicb is 
also a part of tbe body of tbe subject in question, and wbo. 
takes a very industrious part in tbe afFairs of mankind. 

Tbe word " serpent " is translated from tbe Hebrew 
word " N-b-sb " (pronounced nocbosb), and is used in tbe 
Hebrew language for tbe word convinced, or experienced, 
as tbe Englisb version of tbe Bible reads tbat Laban, in 
speaking to Jacob (Genesis 30:27) says: " I bave learned 
by expérience." Tbe wbole quotation is translated from 
tbe Hebrew word " N-b-sb-ti," tbe suffix, ti, stands for 
tbe pronoun I, and indicates tbe tense. 

And it also means foretelling, as we fînd Josepb's ser- 
vant told to tbe sons of Jacob, wben be accused tbem of 
stealing tbe silver cup. Gen., cbapter 44, verses 5tb and 
i5tb: " And wbereby, indeed, be divinetb " (foretells), 
and Josepb said to tbem: " Wot ye not tbat sucb a man 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 121 

as I can certainly divine " (foretell). The word divine, in 
both places, is translated from the word " n-h-sh." In 
Num., chapter 24th, verse ist. Balaam did not go to seek 
for " enchantments," (N-h-sh-im). The im forms the pkn-al 
number. 

And whe rêver the w^ord enchant, divine or foretell is 
found in the English Bible, it is translated from the w^ord 
n-h-sh. 

And the reason why a serpent is called, in the He- 
brew language the same name that is applied or used to 
express enchantment, divination and foretelling is, because 
thèse things corne from within, and the injury that 
thèse things do to a person or thing is invisible. The sting 
of a serpent is the same; he takes nothing from the body 
that he, the serpent, injures. On the contrary, he adds to 
it his own poison, w^hich comes from within himself. His 
sting is not like the bite of any other ferocious animal, 
which takes part of the body of the animal that he bites, 
and leaves an open wound in the body. Enchantment, evil 
counsel and the evil imagination of man's own heart, don't 
take anj'thing from him who tries to be benefited by 
them, consults them, or on whom they, or either ot them, 
operate, but impart in him part of their own poison, the 
same as the serpent does. Eve, the mother of mankind, 
followed the désire of her heart, and she was stung by the 
imagination of her own heart. She felt the sting of re- 
morse. 

" Slander stings the brow." — Pope. 

Webster, in defining the word stung-, says: " To 
pierce with a sting, or the weapon with which certain an- 
imais are furnished, such as bées, wasps, scorpions and the 
like. 2. To pain accutely, as the conscience is stung with 
remorse. Stinger; one who, or that which, stings, vexes 



122 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

or gives accute pain;" and it îs well known that anything 
which is deceitful, insinuating, cunning or sly, is called 
snaky. (See Webster's Unabridged.) 

The Bible has been given to man for his benefît; and 
the benefît which man derived from the bibhcal account of 
the allegorical account of the garden of Eden and ail that 
it tells abolit it is, that man shall study it, ascertain its 
meaning, and by so doing he will ascertain the power of 
his mind, so that he may know what man is; and the 
knowledge of himself will and does create in him a désire 
to know his Maker, God. To make an epitome of the 
whole would be thus: Man's mind, which is the machin- 
ery of the soûl, is the garden which God hath planted 
" from hefore " (Mikedem, Heb). '* Time ', (Eden). The 
soûl, which is part of God, did exist before time existed, 
or before the time that man came into existence. Man, or 
the body of man, is the ground from which everything 
grows or comes out. The mind of man produces ideas, the 
same as the ground produces everything that grows and 
the minerais which are fou nd in the ground. The pro- 
ductive power of the mind, or the power of thought, is 
the one stream which it says comes out of the garden of 
" time " (Eden), and that stream or river, after it comes 
out of the power of thoughts, into the mind, it séparâtes 
itself into " four heads." " The name of the fîrst is Pison, 
which compasseth the land of ' Havilah,' and there is 
ofold." The land of Havilah and the river Pison are un- 
known; neither are the meanings of the words known» 
But we do know that the natural, or first thoughts of 
man, are good. They are gold — " And the gold of that 
land is good." After it is refîned, it makcs no différence in 
what land gold was found, it is of the same value; that is, 
one is as good as the other. The very fact that it says, 
" And the gold of that land is good," is sclf-evidence that 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I23 

the author of the subject in question did not mean the 
gold that is found in the earth, but shows that the word 
gold is used allegorically ; and the reader will please take 
the trouble to ascertain what Bdellium is, which it says is 
also found in the land that is surrounded by the river Pi- 
son, or the first head of the river that came out of Edn 
to water the garden. 

Let every man contemplate his own thoughts, and he 
will find out the four heads into which the river in ques- 
tion did and does part itself. 

We believe he will find that one of thèse rivers sur- 
rounds a land which has in itself more valuable produc- 
tions than gold is; and he will find that one of thèse 
streams is black enough to be the land of " Ethiopia " 
itself, not only to surround that allegorical land; and we 
are sure he will hâve no trouble to find the other two 
streams. And if the reader should — which we believe he 
will — find that the stream which waters his garden (mind) 
divides itself after it leaves the garden into more than four 
streams, we therefore will inform him beforehand that each 
one of the four heads subdivides itself into more than one 
small stream, and thèse small streams run in any and every 
direction that the possessor thereof wants them to run; and 
why the Bible divides it into four heads only, is because 
there are but four directions known to man, namely : east, 
west, north and south. And it makes no différence in what 
part of the earth a man is, the great river that came out 
from Edn waters his garden, which God hath planted from 
before (Mkdm) God placed the man in that garden (con- 
dition), and brought and brings to him (to his understand- 
ing and sight) ail that He hath created; and what the man 
(Adam) " called " or calls it " was " or is its name. And 
in that garden grow ail the trees that are pleasant to the 



124 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

eyes or sight, and good for food (for the mind), '' and the 
" tree of life (eternal) also within the garden, and the tree 
" of knowledge of good and evil." 

The same author^ in the Book of Deuteronomy, chap- 
ter 30th, verse I5th, says: " See, I hâve set before thee 
" this day Hfe and good, and death and evil;" and the i6th 
verse of that chapter tells what he did set for them, which 
is: " In that I command thee this day to love the Lord 
" thy God, to walk in His w^ays and to keep His com- 
" mandments." And this is the tree of life and the tree of 
knowledge; and it is said in the same book, chapter 4th, 
verse 6th: " Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is 
" your w^isdom and understanding in the sight of the 
" nations." 

The serpent is, as has heretofore been explained, the 
evil inclination of man's heart, which " was evil from his 
youth," that winds itself around the man and beguiles him 
to use the streams which flow from the great river that 
comes out from Eden (the soûl which endures through ail 
time), of which man has the control, to water and make 
grow the désire of the body, instead of watering the tree 
of life which is in the midst of the trees that are pleasant 
to the eye. 

The gênerai inclination of mankind to care for his 
body is the allegorical eating of the tree of knowledge; 
and the female is an object to which the inclination of the 
body is more than to anything else, and which controls 
more and has a greater power over man than anything 
else, and to whom man is more subjected than to anything 
else, because she is of his own body. She is therefore 
made the allegorical object to speak with the allegorical 
serpent, and partake of the tree of knowledge herself, and 
give to her husband, too. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



The saying of the woman, " The serpent beguiled me 
" and I did it," is the same as saying the désire of the 
body brought me to it. And what Adam said, " The 
" woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me 
" of the tree and I did eat,'' is the same that men say every 
day — " I hâve done this or that because I hâve to support 
" my wife and children." There are many evils which 
man does and hiys the blâme to, or makes it to hâve been 
an indispensable necessity for him to do so on account of 
his wife and children. 

Our explanation of the whole subject is not new. It 
was well known to, and jDartly expressed by, those who 
hâve studied it. Maimonide says it is not as it reads. The 
Talmud says that the serpent was as big as an ass. (We 
hâve in a former chapter explained that the ass which is 
represented to hâve spoken to Balaam was only the in- 
clinations of his, Balaam's heart.) And in speaking of the 
tree of life the Talmud says: " A man has to walk five 
" hundred years to reach the tree of life; and ail the vs^aters 
'' of the création are under it, and from there separate and 
" go in every direction;" and concludes by saying that ail 
the wnsdom that a man can learn on earth is what is called 
the tree of life. And ail this must bave been well known 
to the Jews at ail times, as it is now to those who know 
anything at ail of Judaism. (A brief quotation from it is 
even found in their prayer-books, or prayers which they 
say on the second day of the feast of Booths.) And the 
placing of man in the garden of Edn don't mean that God 
placed him from one place into another, but from one con- 
dition to another. 

The enmity between the seed of the woman and the 
seed of the serpent which it speaks of, and which was to 
be and is, dénotes tlie enmity that exists between good and 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



evil. The thief goes to steal and lays his plans in disguise; 
he hides himself in any hole or corner where lie can crawl 
in; he sneaks like a snake or serpent. The murderer does 
the same. The highwayman can accomplish his schemes 
in no other way. They injure the body (bruise the heei). 
Their deeds are the seeds of the serpent — the evil inclina- 
tions of their hearts. The punishment they receive for bruis- 
ing the heel of man is, they lose their moral and divine part 
of man — the soûl, which is the head ot man And the 
punishment w^hich thèse serpents receive comes from the 
head of man. The laws which man enacts, by which 
thèse serpent-like evil doers are punished, come from the 
head of man. Lav^^s are enacted by man according to his 
moral compréhension between right and wrong; and that 
power is in the head, or in the soûl. Thus, evil doings 
(serpents) come from the body (the inclinations of the heart) 
and injure the body (bruise the heel); and the punishment 
it receives comes from the head, the soûl, which is always 
spoken of in the féminine gender, and is therefore repre- 
sented by the name of the woman (Eve), and bruised the 
head of the serpent, wickedness. 

We will now turn our attention to the sons of Adam, 
and see how and why Gain killed Abel, and why Seth, 
and not the others, was born in the likeness and image of 
his father, Adam. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I27 



CHAPTER XVI. 

CAIN, ABEL, SETH, ENOS, AND ENOCH, UP TO NOAH. 

Adam had, and man has, three sons, Cain, Abel and 
Seth. One, Cain, tilled the ground; the other, Abel, raised 
stock; and the third, Seth, was in the image of his 
fatht^ man, Adam; and that son was born when Adam, 
man, was ah'eady one hundred and thirty years old, and 
after Cain killed Abel. 

Cain represents the man who tills the ground and 
dépends on the soil for his support in the world.* 

When he got him at his place in the fîeld he killed 
him; and Cains, or such men, are fugitives and vagabonds 
in the land. 

Abel is the représentative of the man who has under- 
standing, and don't dépend on the ground or his strength 

* We don't represent, nor doe? the subject itself represent, the educated 
and scientiflc agriculturist of America, or of the présent timo; it meaus the 
agriculturist of the dark âges. In our young days, we hâve known men 
in Russia who hâve plowed the ground, but knew as much of anything else 
besides plowing the ground— as much as the oxen knew, with which they 
plowed; he represents the power which it requires to plow and till the ground. 
An ox has more of that power in him than man has. He knows nothing of the 
Lord (reason and understanding, which is of the Lord, the Lord or of the Lord J, 
he has no respect for reason or understanding, and reason don't respect his or 
him. Hence He (the Lord) had not respect for the offerings of Cain, and Cain 
was wroth." The very picture of wild ignorance. If anyof our readers doubt 
this analogy, let them try to show disrespect to an Indian, where the latter 
knows that he is at home, as Cain was, in the fie'd. He will not only be con- 
vinced of our analogy, but he will also find out why the name of serpent (n-h- 
s-h) is used for the word convineed, as Laban did in speaking of Jacob. 



128 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

of the body, for his support, as Gain does. His mind 
brings forth ideas. He is a " herder of sheep." He appro- 
priâtes his entire mind for the use of his body. He makes 
the Bible and laws which God hath designated for the 
soûl to perform while it is in man, to serve his body, bus- 
iness. He takes it ali to Gain (the body), into the fîeld. 
He resjDects reason (the Lord), and the Lord respects his 
oflFering. It helps him. Reason serves him. But while 
he is attending the body (Gain), the latter kills him, the 
man. The soûl is the thing that makes man; and that part 
of man is killed by the body. Gain. (Maimonide and oth- 
ers say that such men are brutes. They are a little above 
an ape, and far below man.) God and reasonable men 
protest against the killing of the soûl of Abel by his bôdy 
(Gain) in the fîeld of the body. 

Seth, the third son of Adam (man), who was born 
after the killing of Abel by Gain, and after the father, 
Adam (man), was one hundred and thirty years old, is the 
représentative of man, who is the agent of God the Gre- 
ator of heaven and earth, and everything that is in it, as 
well as everything that belongs to it, and to what it be- 
longs. 

An agent, overseer or superintendent must know and 
understand the thing of which he is the agent, overseer or 
superintendent. Hence man must understand the earth, 
what he sees from it or what belongs to it, and what it 
belongs to others from it; because ail belongs to the same 
owner, God, the Greator of ail. And above ail, he must 
know the proprietor, the owner of ail, his principal, and 
must keep a record of ail the transactions in the business 
of which he is agent, overseer or superintendent; and as 
such officer, he is accountable to the proprietor, not only 
for himsclf, but also for what he allows others to do. The man 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I29 

to whom God hath given the most understanding, is the 
highest officer, and is therefore responsible for the doings, 
or non -doings, of his subordinate officers (tèllow men). 
The Bible is the inventory of ail that man has in his pos- 
session or under his control, as well as the officiai record 
of his predecessors in office, and the biography of his 
principal, God. 

A man who is neither a Cainite nor an Abelite, but is 
what Seth represents. attends to his body, the same as he 
does and must do to his house, in which his body lives, 
or which his body must hâve to live in; and the rest or 
ail of his time he spends to the business of his principal 
in his officiai capacity. 

Man's position on earth is the same as the position of 
a minister, sent by one government to represent that gov- 
ernment at the court of another government. The minis- 
ter that represents the government of the United States at 
the court of England, France, Russia or any other coun- 
try, is considered, while there, as if he had been in his own 
country. Whatever he does, is the doings of his gov- 
ernment; and w^hat is done to him, is considered as done 
to the government that he represents. If he violâtes the 
laws of the country wherein he is, he may be punished by 
the laws of that country, if his government gives its con- 
sent to it. And if he violâtes the laws of the government 
which he represents, while he is representing it at the 
court of some other government, his home government 
calls him home and there it deals with him according to 
his deeds. 

God hath given man the right and power to make 
laws and régulations in conformity with His (God's) laws 
for the government of man, which laws are to protect the 
rights of CÂch and every man. If the représentative of 



130 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

God, man, violâtes any of the laws made by man, or any 
of the laws of God which He made for the protection of 
man's rights, such as murder, theft and the like of it, he, 
the one that violâtes any of thèse lavv^s, is punished by 
the government of man, by and with the consent of 
God, whose government man represents on earth. And 
if man violâtes any of the laws of God, such as observ- 
ing the day of rest, or in any way neglecting the duty 
which he owes to his government, God, by which the 
rights of any other man are not injured, his government, 
God, brings him home and deals with His représentative, 
man, in accordance with his doings. And this is the 
teaching of religion; and if religion is wrong, as some 
scientific men say, then the scientific and civilized govern- 
ment of men is also wrong. 

The Bible is the document or credentials of man's title 
to his office, which he holds while he is on earth. 

It makes no différence by what name man calls the 
ideas which the Bible conveys to him. Religion, or w^hat 
man calls religion, teaches man to elevate himself and be 
equal to the position that he holds while he is on earth, 
and to make himself worthy to be the représentative of . the 
great government of God. That idea is represented in the 
biblical history of man in speaking of Adam, Gain, Abel, 
Seth, up to Noah, and that is what the Bible means by 
telling us that God brought everything to Adam, man, 
" and whatever Adam (man) called it, that is its name." 

Let us now return to our subject, Seth. His mother 
called him Seth, says the Bible, " because God gave me 
other seed, she said." It may be asked, how did she know 
that he might not be the same as Gain or Abel? The same 
question may be asked, how did Lamech know to call his 
son Noah, saying " This same shall comfort us concerning 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I3I 

" our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground 
" which the Lord hath cursed." The same may be asked, 
how did Eber know to call his son Peleg? But the last 
answers ail. It says: " For in his days was the earth 
divided." The last quotation shows that the name was given 
to him after the act which his name désignâtes took place. 
But if the act took place before he was born, then it 
could not hâve taken place in his days ; consequently we 
say that the record is self-evidence that the act after which 
he was named took place some time after he was born, and 
he was named after the act subséquent to its taking place. 
The same may be said to hâve been the case with Noah. 
He may not hâve been called Noah until after God told 
him there was going to be a flood, and it was going to 
destroy the whole earth on account of the wickedness of 
man. Otherwise how could his father know to call him 
that name, and state the reason for naming him so? It is 
the same as we are told the case was with Jacob ; he was 
named Israël after he prevailed over the angel. The same 
is the case with Esau; he was not called Edom until after 
he sold his birthright to Jacob. And that must hâve been 
the case with Seth; his mother could not hâve said that 
God gave her other seed in place of Abel until she saw that 
his actions were différent from the actions of Abel or Gain; 
and we are told that Adam had a number of sons and 
daughters besides the three that are named. 

There are four words in the Hebrew language which 
designate the noun man, namely : Adam, Enos (or Enosh), Ge- 
ver and Ish. The fîrst (Adam) means man in gênerai; the sec- 
ond (Enos) is, as if it had an adjective of the positive 
degree joined to it. " What is man that thou art mindful 
of him ? " — Psalms, 8. The word man in the quotation is 
translated from the word '' Enos." The third, " Gever," 
is a higher degree. " Blessed is the man that trusteth in 



132 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

God." The Word man in this quotation, is translated 
from the word " Gever." It is a higher degree. He 
trusteth in God. And the word *•' Ish " is the highest de- 
gree of man. Wherever the word man is connected or 
joined to the name of the Deity, as " the man of God," 
the word man is translated from the word " Ish." 

Moses is called " Ish" the (man Moses); or when 
the adjective righteous, or jiist, is joined to the word man, 
the word man, in the Hebrew, is Ish. Noah is called 
" Ish." 

We will now review tht historical names ot the Bible 
from Adam till Noah, or only those that are of some im- 
portance, or hâve some bearing upon the subject in ques- 
tion. 

The name of " Adam " dénotes ground. Gain comes 
from the word purchase. Eve said, " I hâve purchased a 
man from the Lord." (The word gotten in the English 
Bible is a mistranslation.) A thing that is purchased is a 
chattel, not a man, a mère power, as his occupation dés- 
ignâtes, a tiller of the soil. The word '' Abel " is the 
only word that désignâtes vanity. 

The man that appropriâtes his entire understanding to 
the service of his body is certainly vain. Hence he, Abel, 
is the représentative of that class of men whose vanity 
kills their manhood. Seth was the appointée, that he shall 
be the father of man. He was called Seth, because his 
mother said, " God hath appointed me another seed." His 
son was named " Enos," which is the lowest degree of 
man. There are eight générations from Enos till Noah. 
And there are four générations from " Enos " to " Enoch," 
and four from the latter to Noah. The word " Enoch, " 
in the Hebrew language, means training. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I33 

" Train up a child the way he shall go." — Prov. 22. 
The Word train is translated from the same word that the 
noun Enoch is. Enoch is the man who walked with 
God, and the account says that he " walked with God 
after he begot Methuselah," or when he was sixty-fîve years 
old. And when he was three hundred and sixty-five years 
old, God took him. From what it tells of Enoch, and 
from the position in regard to the number of the générations 
between Enos and Noah, that is ascribed to him, and be- 
îng that it don't say that he was just or righteous, as it 
does of Noah, is to be implied that he was in the com- 
parative degree to Enos; that is, he was of a higher de- 
gree than Enos, and lower than Noah, or was of the de- 
gree that is expressed by the noun " Gever," which is 
between " Enos " and " Ish." Noah is called " Ish." 

We think that it is due to the reader that we shall 
make him aware of the purpose for which we went into 
the examination of the names of men named in the within 
chapter, and the object or use of knowing whether the 
English word man is translatad from the Hebrew words 
" Adam, Enos, Gever," or from the word "Ish." We 
hâve three purposes for it: First. — It will be indispensable 
for the reader to know of it, when we come to speak of 
the Levitical laws. Second. — To show that the Bible is 
a school-book and was given to man for the purpose that 
he may learn to be what his position requires him to be, 
and what his Creator gave him power to make himself to 
be. Third. — For the purpose of enabling ourselves to 
prove by the historiés of other nations, and by newly made 
seientific discoveries, the truth of the facts which the Bible 
tells us, though it speaks enigmatically. 

The last will appear when we come to inquire into 
the flood, in the daya of Noah. And the second we will 



134 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

explain hère, and with it conclude this chapter, as well as 
the biblical account of the création. 

Enoch (or train), who occupies the middle position 
in point of time, and the comparative or middle degree in 
quah"ty between Enos (of the positive degree) and Noah 
(of tlie superlative degree), " walked with God " after he 
became sixty-five years old, or after he begat his son Me- 
thuselah, and when he became three hundred and sixty-five 
years old he " walked with God, and he was not, for God 
" took him." The questions which the world, or the men 
in the world, ask, are : What is the meaning, " he walked 
" with God"? What does it mean, " God took him" ? If 
he died at the âge of three hundred and sixty-five, why 
don't it say so? If God took him alive, the same as the 
Bible tells of Elijah, why don't the Bible inform us of it, 
the same as it does of the latter? The answer to thèse 
questions is, he (Enoch) did not die at the time he was 
three hundred and sixty-five years old, neither did God 
take him from the earth into the heavens alive. When he 
was sixty-five years old he began co walk in the way that 
God desires man to walk. It is the same as it tells of 
Abraham : " And when Abraham was ninety-nine years 
" old the Lord appeared unto Abraham and said unto 
him, I am the Almighty God, WALK BEFORE ME, 
" AND BE PERFECT." Gen., chap. 17. 

And that was the case with " Enoch;" when he was 
sixty-five years old, or after he begat Methuselah, he began 
to train himself to be or to become perfect, and was then or 
there called Enoch, which means training. A man who 
appropriâtes his soûl for the use of his body, and for noth- 
ing else, is imperfect; he is an animal, but not a man. As 
has several times heretofore been explained and expressed, 
he is an Abelite and not of the posterity of Seth. And at 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I35 
» 

the time he became three hundred and sixty-fîve years old 
lie became perfect, " and he was not;" that is, he was not 
what he had been, nor what his génération was; as it 
says of'Noah: " Noah was a just man, perfect in his gén- 
érations " And Enoch became perfect in his génération 
when h^e became three hundred and sixty-five years old. 
The Word God, used in connection with Enoch and with 
Noah in the quotations of the latter, is translated from the 
Hebrevv word " Alohim," which means power. He, Enoch, 
walked or foUowed the dictâtes of his mind and not 
the evil désire of his heart; hence " he was not" what the 
rest of men of his time were, " for the Alohim (the power 
of his mind or soûl, which is of God,) took him." This 
subject will hâve to be referred to when we corne to speak 
of the death of Moses, hence we will now turn our atten- 
tion to Noah, and to the flood which is said to hâve taken 
place in his days. 



36 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XVII. 

NO AH AND THE FLOOD. 

In the preceding chapter we hâve demonstrated that 
the names by which certain men are called in the history 
that the Bible gives of them are not the names that were 
given to thcm to distinguish them one from the other, as 
John or James, but they are names which designate their 
position, character or occupation, as " Enos," man, not a 
child. It difFers from Adam, because the latter inckides 
men, women and children. Next to Enos is " Gever," 
which means a man who jDOssesses some quaHties, either of 
strength or character, of which " Enoch" is the représent- 
ative. He was above Enos and below Noah. The appel- 
lation of the latter is " Ish," from which the noun man in 
connection with Noah is translated; and that is the 
highest degree of man. And that appellation is not 
given to Noah without being qualified. It says: "Noah 
was a just man," (Ish, Heb.) Next comes the qualifica- 
tion: " Perfect in his générations." Had he been in the 
générations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Moses he might 
not hâve been considered perfect. Ail thèse and the like 
of it has been inserted in the Bible that man may study 
and know what he has to be. If man has now more 
knowledge, or better facilities to obtain it, than what Noah 
had, he must be more perfect than Noah was. But he 
must hâve had another name than Noah; that name désig- 
nâtes comfortinof or rest, as the Bible tells us his father said: 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I37 

" This name shall comfort us concerning our works and 
" the toil of our hands because of the ground which the 
" Lord hath cursed." 

We hâve no history nor any other évidence that God 
ever told to any man before He told Noah that He, God, 
would or did destroy the earth and ail the work that is 
on it; and God did not tell it to Noah until after the latter 
begat his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, who, as the 
account says, were not ail born before their father was fîve 
hundred years old, as we are told by the last verse of the 
fifth chapter of Genesis. How could his father know to 
give to his newly-born son a name which should designate 
a circumstance of which nobody knew, before it was told 
to the child in question five hundred years after he was 
born, and which did not take place before that child was 
six hundred years old? See Gen., chap. yth. And not 
only does the account say that he was called Noah, but it 
gives the reason why he was so called, and the reason 
which it gives désignâtes the condition in which the child 
in question was after he was more than six hundred years 
old. He was six hundred, it says, when he went into the 
ark, and he was more than a year in the ark before he was 
safe on dry land again. 

Columbus is called the discoverer of America. Wash 
ington is called the father of this country, the United 
States. But it is certain that the former was not called 
the discoverer of America until after he had discovered it, 
and the appellation of father of this country was not given 
to the latter until after he proved himself by his acts to 
be a father to it; and it is also certain that the name of 
Noah was not given to the person in question until the 
action, acts, which that name désignâtes took place, or be- 
came known to him or those who grave him that name. 



138 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

We hâve thus far shovvn the meaning of " He walked with 
God," which the Bible tells us of Noah as well as it does of 
Enoch; and that he whom the Bible calls Noah must hâve 
had another name by which he was know^n besides the 
name of Noah, which he could not hâve had before he or 
any one else knew anything of the flood, and that he would 
be saved therefrom, which was not known to any one nor 
to him before he became five or six hundred years old. 

We will now direct our attention to the flood. 

The flood of Noah, as it is often called, is one of the 
biblical points at which the " Abelites," who appropriâtes 
their manhood (Ish), w^hich désignâtes or cornes from the 
soûl, to their body (Gain) who kills their soûl, while they 
are with him (Gain) in the field. They, and every one of 
them, attacks the Bible upon the question of the flood. 
The author of the " Age of Reason " says that if there 
had been such a flood, and if Noah had been saved, as the 
Bible says he was, the name of Noah would hâve been in 
every family. Bishop Golenso, in his attack upon the 
Pentateuch, says that he told the " flood story " to a simple 
minded African domestic boy, and he could not make him 
believe that there could go into the ark a maie and female 
of ail kinds of beasts and fowls that are in the world. 
Hence, he concludes the Bible is not true. But let us ex- 
amine the biblical account of the flood, irrespective of what 
this dignitary of the Ghurch of England, or any one else 
of that class had said or says. Let us first examine what 
the Bible itself says about it, and see if it is as unnatural 
and unreasonable as they, the Abelites, say. 

" And the Lord said, I will destroy the Adam (man), 
" whom I hâve created, from the face of the earth. The 
" earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was 
" filled with violence. God looked upon the earth, and be- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I39 

" hold it was corrupt; for ail flesh had corrupted his way 
" upon the earth." 

" And behold, I will destroy them with the Earth." 
Gen., chap. 6th. 

From what we hâve hère quoted from the Bible, it 
is plainly perceived that the flood was brought upon the 
earth to destroy man (Adam) and the earth with it. " I 
will destroy them with the earth," because of the wicked- 
ness of man. And Noah (who was an " Ish," not an 
" Adam"), " found grâce in the eyes of the Lord " and 
was saved. America is the western half of the earth; and 
if an historian would say that the Romans or any other 
nation had control of the whole earth, and was speaking^ 
of a time before America was known to the world, it 
could certainly not be construed that he, the historian, 
meant to say that the Indians of America were also con- 
trolled by the Romans. But the historian would, never- 
theless, be justified in saying the whole earth, though 
one-half of the earth was then altogether unknown to the 
Romans. 

And it is the same with the flood. It was brought 
upon the earth because the men that were then upon the 
earth were wicked; they were only Adams (ground); they 
only went after the formation of their hearts, like any 
créature. Hence they are called " flesh," in common w^ith 
ail other créatures; and Noah, who was not an " Adam," 
but an " Ish," was saved. " For thee I bave seen right- 
eous before me in the génération." Thus because he was 
not as wicked as the rest he was saved. 

Man was the one that " corrupted " the earth ; conse- 
quently the earth, or the part of it that was not inhabited 
by man, was not corrupted, and was therefore saved from 



140 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the destruction of the flood, the same as Noah was, because 
he was not wicked .* 

Bishop Colenso says that the third génération of the 
seventy IsraeHtes who came with Jacob into Egypt could 
in two hundred and fifteen years hâve been no more than 
five thousand, including men, women and children, allow- 
ing four and a half children to each. According to the 
same calculation and ratio, the génération of Noah, which 
was the tenth génération from Adam, could hâve been 
about five hundred thousand. That is, Adam was one; 
the génération of Seth, four and a half; of Enos, twenty, 
which is the product of four and a half by four and a 



* The stress or distinction which we make between the word man, that is 
translated from the Hebrew word Adam, and the same noun when translated 
from the word " Ish," is not our own idea; neither is it a new idea. AU the He- 
brew commentators on the Bible use it; and it is as much an established fact 
in the Hebrew language as is the fact that the word man don't mean child in the 
English language. (See '' Moureh Nebuchim," part first, chapter fourteen, and 
the comments of Abarbanell and others en the same.) The 49th chapter of 
Psalms demonstrates the différence between "Adam" and " Ish," especially the 
second verse of that chapter; but that verse is sadly mistranslated into Eng- 
lish, It reads: " Both low and high, rich and poor, together." The word 
low is translated from the Hebrew words " children of Adam;" and the word 
high is translated from the words " children of Ish." The first part of the 
verse reads in Hebrew thus: 

" Gam benay Adam Gam benay ' Ish.' " 

A proper translation of it into the Knglish language would read thus: Also 
the children of Adam, also the children of " Ish." But the English version, 
even as it is, conveys the idea that Adam is low, and " Ish " is high; and 
where man is compared to beasts in that chapter, as in verse 12th; and last, 
the word man there, and where ver the noun man is used in connection 
with some low state, it is translated from the word Adam, ail through the 
Bible. But we will hâve to refer to it in the next chapter, and also when we 
shall speak of the Levitical law. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the 
flood was only on that part of the earth that was inhabited by man which 
could not hâve been a very great portion of the earth, because the inhabit- 
ants, men, could not hâve been very numerous then; and the historian, the 
author of that account, is justifled in saying that it was upon tha whole earth, 
the same as the historian that would relate a thing that took place before 
America was discovered, would be jastflied in saying that it prevailed over 
the whole earth, meaningwhat was then known or inhabited. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I4I 



half;of Cainan, ninety; and to continue multipiying each gén- 
ération by four and a half until the génération of Noah, 
will make a total of about seven hundred thousand of the 
ten générations, including Adam and Noah. Tliat em- 
braces an epoch of over one thousand five hundred years; 
and as no man hved one thousand years, we must there- 
fore subtract from it ail those that wcre born during the 
first fîve or six hundred years of that epoch; and that 
vvould leave about fîve hundred thousand of people. 

Hence according to the folly, ignorance or wilful mis- 
representation of the Bishop and his unthinking echoes, the 
flood was only upon as large a portion of the earth as 
Avould accommodate five hundred thousand human beings; 
as large a pièce of ground as Cook county w^ould certainly 
be more than enough, and the ark would unquestionably 
be big enough for tw^o of ail the unclean, and fourteen of 
each of the clean beasts that are, by nature, adapted and 
live on the quantity of land in question, in that part of 
the world where the flood was. 

We beg the reader to bear in mind that this is only 
brought up by us as a key-hole to the folly of the Bishop, 
and we will leave it for him and his disciples to contem- 
plate to its bottom, if the bottom of folly can be reached. 
And we will conclude by saying, as the history thereof 
indicates, that the flood was only upon that part of the 
earth that was inhabited by man. 

And the proof that there was a flood grows stj'onger 
as time and science advance. Until the présent century 
the world had no other proof of the flood besides what tiie 
Bible says, then what Josephus says. And this is what he 
says in the third chapter of his first book: 

" New ail the writers of the barbarian historiés make 



143 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" mention of this flood and the ark, among whom is Be- 
" rosus the Chaldean; for ^vhen he is describing the cir- 
" cumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: ' It is said there 
" ' are still some parts of the ship in Armenia, at the moun- 
" ' tain of Cordyaens, and that some people carry ofF 
" ' pièces of the bitumen, which they take away and use 
'" chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.' Hier- 
'' onymus, the Egj^ptia.i, also who wrote the Phenician 
" antiquities, and Muasaes and a great many more, make 
" mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his 
" ninety-sixth book hath a particular relation about them 
" where he speaks thus: ' There is a great mountain in 
"' Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is 
"' reported that many who fled, at the time of the déluge, 
" ' w^ere saved, and that one was carried in an ark came 
" ' on shore upon the top of it, and that the remains of the 
" ' timber were a great while preserved.' This might ^be 
" the nîan about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews, 
" wrote." 

The reader will now perceive the purpose of our 
attempt — and we believe with success — to prove that Noah 
must hâve had another name, and was known by that name 
long before he was named Noah, which last name he 
could not hâve had before the coming of the flood became 
known to him, and through him, to others; and it was 
not known to him before he was five or six hundred years 
old. He was six hundred years old, says the Bible, when 
he went into the ark; and it says that he was informed of 
the flood after he was five hundred years old. Hence, 
from the time that he was born up to the time tliat he 
acquired the circumstantial name or title of Noah, he was 
called by some other name. 

The name of Moses is found in the ancient writings 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I43 

of Egypt, and the namc of Abram is found in the writings 
of the .Chaldeans, because thèse names were given to thein 
when they were babes, and the name of Noah is no where 
found, though the flood is spoken of by the writers of 
several nations, as is seen by what we hâve copied of Jo- 
sephus in this chapter about the subject in question. The 
archaeological discoveries by the late George Smith tell of 
the flood. The discoveries are called the Assyrian Clay 
Library. It tells that in the time of Hysuthrus, the tenth 
king of Chaldea, a great flood took place. Noah is of the 
tenth génération after Adam; and it tells that the deity 
wdioni the Chaldeans call Cronos told Hysuthrus in a 
dream that on the fifteenth day of the month Dasius w^ould 
corne a flood and destroy ail mankind;and that Hysuthrus 
v^rote it ail down and buried it in the city of Sippara, and 
built a vessel for him and his friends and w^as saved thereby. 
And the présent discovery by Mr. Rassam, which is a 
chest of records found by him at the same place or city in 
Chaldea — the very place where the biblical account says 
the survivors of the flood or the descendants of Noah lived. 
And he, having been the head or the father or those that 
were saved from the flood, was naturally considered by 
them and by their descendants as their ruler 
or king during the three hundred and fifty years 
that he lived càer the flood; and as his sons and 
their wives knew that he, Noah, had foretold the 
coming of the flood, he was by his posterity looked upon 
as a deity, which is in accord with the idea man had of 
the Deity; as the Egyptian writers ascribe the account of 
the flood, and what took place before the flood, 
to Thoth, whom they, the Egyptians, kept as a 
deity. And the name of Noah is not found in any of their 
writings, because he was called by his sons and by those 
who lived with him in the same time by the familiar name 
which he had and was known by before the circumstancc 



144 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

which gave him the name of Noah happened. The father- 
in-law of Moses is called by seven différent names in the 
Bible, and ail the names are derived from actions which 
he had done and from circumstances in which he was. 
We believe that the biblical account of the flood is fully 
sustained by other évidence, and that the flood was but 
local, or only there where the few human beings were 
living; and it is more than évident that they were ail in 
one part on the earth. When the records which Mr. Ras- 
sam has lately discovered in that part of the earth where 
the flood was are explained and known, the world will 
hâve more évidence of the flood and of what took place 
before that time. 



OR KEY TO SCKIPTUKE. I45 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE SONS OF GOD, THE DAUGHTERS OF MAN, AND THE 

REDUCTION OF MAN's LIFE, OR THE TIME 

OF MAN's LIFE. 

" The sons of God saw the daughters of man that 
" they were fair, and they took them wives of ail which 
" they chose." 

The Word God, in the above quotation, is. translated 
from the Hebrew word *' Alohim," and we hâve several 
times heretofore remarked and demonstrated, especially 
in speaking of Balaam, that the word " Alohim " is ap- 
plied to describe the position of iTian, as well as a name 
or attribute of the Deity. And for the purpose of show- 
ing that that is the case ail through the Bible, we will 
not refer to what we hâve said and proven about the 
word in question, which could answer our présent pur- 
pose, but will quote from the eighty-second chapter of 
Psalms, wherein the word in question is used for both the 
Deity and man, and which will also corroborate and sus- 
tain our définition of the word Adam, given in the pre- 
ceding chapter. 

" God standeth in the congrégation of the MIGHTY; 

4' He judgeth among the gods." 

The word mighty is translated from the word aie 



146 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

(power); and the word gods (with a small g) is translated 
from the word Alohim. 

It certainly cannot be siipposed with any degree of 
reason that the author of the Psahns beHeved in, or meant 

to convey an idea of more than one Deity. Neither can 

Trinitarians reasonably claim that the word gods has 
référence to the idéal Trinity. 

First. Why is the word written and printed with a 
small g, while the name of the Deity, at the commence- 
ment of the quotation, is with a capital G? 

Secondly. The contents of the chapter does not 
allow such a construction or supposition. The sixth and 
seventh verses of the same chapter, which is a continuation 
of the same subject, reads thus: 

" I hâve said ye are gods, and ail of you are children 
" of the Most High, but ye shall die like man." 

The word man is translated from the word " Adam," 
which is expressive of the lowest degree of man. The 
idea which that chapter, or its author, means and does 
convey is, God stands in the congrégation of the mighty or 
great men (which is expressed by the word " Ish "), and 
judgeth among the mighty. The word Ish cannot bé 
used in the plural, and is therefore often substituted, as it 
is in this place, by the word Alohim, which is the plural 
of might or power.* 



*The killing- of Abel by Gain is like the answer g-iven by Professer Porson 
to a question asked of bim by an unthinking young man at a dinner party, 
which was, vvhether Captain Cook died at his first voyage or at his second. To 
which query the Professer replied: he died at his first voyage, but he did not 
mind it much, for he made another immediately after the first. And C.iin did 
notremove to the unknown but mistaken land of Nod, but remained a " vaga- 
bond" (which is the meaning of the Hebrew word Nod) in the land. ■where he 
was born or where his f ather Adam was, and very liltely took one or more of 
his sisters for a wife or wives, as we are told in the fourth or fifth chapter of 
Genesisthat Adam had sons and daughters besides the three représentative 
sons vv^hich are named in the account. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. ^ I47 

We can only fînd the word " Ish " used in the plural 
in the one hundred and forty-first chapter of Psalms and in 
the eighth chapter of Proverbs. We can find it in no 
other place in the Bible; neither can we fînd it m* our 
Hebrew Lexicon ; and in the two places where it is used, 
is done so under cover of a poetical license. 

And that is the case of the subject in question. The 
sons of God; Hebrew, " Alohim," the substitute for the 
plural of " Ish." Thereby meaning to convey the idea 
that the posterity of Seth, or " Enos," who is two de- 
grees below an Ish, and still more the posterity of " Enoch," 
who walked with God (as has been explained in a former 
chapter), and was one degree above Enos, and one under 
Ish, which is expressed by the noun Gever, their sons 
are called the sons of Alohim (God), and they took the 
daughters of Adam, Gain and Abel, which are the repré- 
sentatives of the animal part of man. 

There were GIANTS in the earth in those days, 
" and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the 
'"daughters of man, and they bare children to them; the 
" same became mighty men which were of old men of 
" renown." 

The word giants in the above quotation is translated 
from the Hebrew word " N-f-l-im," pronounced Nefeelim, 
and which désignâtes the verb fell or fallen. The 
im dénotes the plural number. The word fallen ought 
to stand in place of giants, which means, or would 
express the meaning, the men who hâve fallen from 
the position of the manhood designated by the word 
Ish, single number, and by the word Alohim, in 
plural, in which position man was, or was designated to be, 
and would hâve been if he had not eaten of the tree of 
knowledge — to the position of Adam, which is the desig- 



148 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

nation of the animal j^art of man, wkich the eating of the 
allegorical tree of knowledge caused him to fall from. It 
was not given to man wisdom enough, says the Talmud, to 
find out the meaning of the tree of knowledge. And the 
idea or information which that part of the bibhcal account 
of man conveys is, that the ofFspring of the amalgamated 
races of posterity of Seth with that of Gain and others 
were reasonable beings, and some of them became renowned 
in olden times for the abihty of their minds^ as Enoch and 
Noah, and others who were also of that race,- and not foi 
the prodigious growths of their bodies, as some hâve siip- 
pobcd and hâve taught the same to others, w^hich supposi- 
tion and behef Maimonide explains by quoting from the 
Book of Proverbs: " The simple believe everything," and 
reason as vv^ell as the text itself compels us to acquiesce in 
the explanation that the heretofore named great and un- 
equaled philosopher bas given. 

Og, king of Boshon, is said by some to hâve been of 
the giants, and that he was of a prodigious height; but the 
Bible refers to bis bed, and says that bis bed was nine cubits 
long. It follows that if the bed was nine cubits long, the 
man could not bave been much more than NINE cubits 
high, and more certain, not more than six or seven cubits 
high. 

The third verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis, which 
is the chapter that contains the subject of ou»r présent 
review, bas been greatly misunderstood and misconstrued, 
and a great many erroné ous ideas bave been planted by 
man upon the misconstruction of that verse, which verse 
reads as follows: 5 

" And the Lord said, My spirit shall not strive with 
" man forever, because he is also flesh; and bis days shall be 
" one hundred and twenty years." (Heb. text.) 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I49 

Men hâve construed this verse to mean that God hath 
reduced the life of man from nearly one thousand years, as 
man lived before the flood, to or to about one hundred and 
twenty years after the flood, and that the death of the body 
of man is a punishnlent to him for his sins. Thèse and ail 
the ideas and beliefs which follow therefrom are erroneous. 

For the purpose of an illustration of w^hat we say, we 
will apply the language of the verse in question to an- 
other subject, and see w^hether it is or can be construed to 
mean the same that the verse in question is said to mean. 

If A, while talking to himself, or some one else, while 
speaking of or about an unruly child and of the punish- 
ment it had already received, would say: 

" I will not strive with him forever, because he is, 
" after ail, but flesh." 

Would it be reasonable to construe that A meant, be- 
cause, " It is but a child, " he w^ill therefore " not strive 
with him forever," but will increase the punishment and 
be done with him at once? 

Or B, seeing A punishing a child, would say to the 
latter: 

" It is also but a child.'* 

Would it be reasonable to say that B told A to pun- 
ish the child more, and lias described the object that A 
was punishing, for the purpose of making A, who was a 
powerful man, not to waste his time in " striving " with 
the child " forever," but punish him at once more severely 
and be done with him ? Would not such a construction of 
the supposed saying of B to A be considered by ail reas- 
able and thinking men as the central part of folly? — that 
is, if folly has a central part, which we believe it has not, 



150 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

for if it had a middle part it would hâve an end also, and 
we can find no end to folly. 

Let us for a moment lock up our understanding and 
knowledge of the fact that the whole biblieal account 
of man is figurative, and that it speaks of the invisible as 
an idea or a thought is, and the author of that account 
was as necessitated to personify it by representing it to us 
through the body, the same as we are compelled to per- 
sonify our ideas and thoughts by applying to tliem persons, 
adjectives, and active transitive verbs. Let us, we say, 
lock up ail the knowledge, while we will consider what 
the Bible tells us of the punishment with which God hath 
punished man for his misdoings from the time of Adam 
until the time of Noah, at which time God said what the 
verse in question tells us. 

Adam was punished by having been compelled to 
work, and by the sweat of his face to earn the bread which 
he ate. His wife, Eve, was punished by the unenviable 
pain of giving birth to a child, and the power of keeping 
herself from giving birth to a child was taken from her, 
because her " DESIRE " is made to be to her " husband," 
and that désire rules or controls her. 

Gain, the son of Adam, made to live the life of a vagabond 
and tugitive, his brother Abel killed, and a decree rendered to 
drown every man except Noah, who was left to regenerate 
the hum an race upon the earth. Thèse show that up to 
that time man was punished with the utmost severity. And 
there can be no greater punishment than total annihilation, 
which was the last punishment which man received; and 
at that time, and about the new race of men, God said 
what we are told by the verse in question, and that can 
not be construed to mean that God said he would punish 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I5I 

man by a more severe punishment because " he is also but 
flesh." There is not, and cannot be, a more severe punish- 
ment than the nine générations which précédée! Noah had 
received. Therefore the shortening of the time of man's 
life upon the earth, by reducing it from about one thou- 
sand years, which was the length of the Hfe of the généra- 
tions that preceded Noah and he included, to about one 
hundred and twenty years, of the générations that hâve 
succeeded him, must be, is, and has been so understood by 
men who are not represented by the word Adam, and are 
not the représentatives of Gain, to mean a relaxation of 
the punishment and a great favor to man, as will be per- 
ceived from the following illustration: 

Suppose A and B made an agreement that the latter 
shall w^ork for the former for a term of ten years, for 
which the former agreed to pay him (B) the su m of one 
thousand dollars after the expiration of ten years. And 
after the agreement was made and B entered upon the 
performance of his part of the agreement A, his em- 
ployer, would £«iy to him : " B, you cannot carry out 
" your part of our agreement, because you cannot afFord 
" to work ten years for one thousand dollars, and not 
" receive any part of the thousand dollars until after the 
" expiration of the ten years; I will therefore reduce the 
" time specified in the contract from ten years to two 
" or less, and will pay you the full one thousand dollars 
" at the expiration of the two years; but you must do the 
" best you can for me during the two years." Would it 
not be considered as the bottom of folly for B or any one 
else to say or suppose that A had done an injury to B by 
giving him the same pay for two years that he was to 
receive for the same labor of ten years? 

And that is just the case in question. God hath em- 



152 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ployed man to work for Him during the time tliat man 
is on earth, and he is to receive his pay after the expira- 
tion of the time of service, which is the time that man is 
on earth, which was first about one thousand years; and a 
certain time God said, " man is also but flesh," he cannot 
afFord or stand to work so long for what he is to receive 
for his work. I will therefore reduce the time that he is 
to work from one thousand to one hundred and twenty 
years, and will give him the same compensation that he 
was to receive for the labor of one thousand years. Hence, 
to take the shortening of the time that man has to labor 
on earth as a punishment to man, is as unreasonable as 
the saying that A has injured B by giving him one thou- 
sand dollars for two years labor, instead of making him 
work ten years for the same thousand dollars. 

And the benefît which man receives from the réduc- 
tion of his stay upon the earth is a great deal more than 
what B received from A in the case given for the illus- 
tration, because B was sure to receive the one thousand 
dollars at the expiration of the time ot his service. He did 
not hâve the risk of finding himself at the end of his time 
indebted to A, as man has of finding himself to be in- 
debted to his employer or principal, God, after the time 
that his earthly labors expire. The condition which man 
occupies on earth, is that of an agent (as has been said in 
a former chapter), who is to defray his own expenses, but 
uses the money of his principal, and has to keep debtor and 
crédit account between himself and the principal. And if he 
(man) don't look out and strictly attend to the business for 
which God placed him upon the earth, he may expect to 
find himself debtor on the day that he will be called to bal- 
ance his account. 

The man who claims he has to and does attend to his 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I53 

own business (of the body) while he is on earth, and draws 
from the gênerai funds which the principal hath appropri- 
ated as an advance for the necessary use of his agents, he, 
the man that does business for himself on earth, will 
certainly find himself indebted for ail that He drew from 
the advance fund of the universe. Hence the sooner he is 
recalled, the less he will be indebted to his principal, God, 
and is therefore benefited by the shortening of his stay on 
the earth, upon which he did not come of his own accord, 
and upon which he could not maintain himself from his 
own resources. 

And the man who does attend to his offiicial duty on 
earth is also more benefited than B was, in the illustra- 
tion, because " HE IS ALSO FLESH." And so long as 
he is in the flesh on earth, he is liable to violate his offi- 
ciai duty by attending to his fleshy (bodily) business. The 
shorter his stay is on earth, the sooner he gets released of 
his risk, and bas fulfilled hîs part of the agreement, for 
which he will receive the same considération as if he had 
stayed and labored on earth one thousand years longer. 

Hence the shortening of man's life upon earth must, 
is, and always bas been, taken by reasonable men, who 
understood the Bible, which is (as bas been said) the in- 
voice of what God placed in the possession and for the 
guidance of man, and the officiai record of his office, to be 
a great benefit to man. 

And being that we know that the reader will ask if 
that is so, that man bas, is and ought -to consider the 
death of his body to be of great benefit to him, why don't 
we find man now, or in history that there ever was a 
man, who did not désire to live on earth as long as God 
would let him? Why did Moses pray to God that He 
may let him live longer? 



154 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

We therefore must continue this subject for the pur- 
pose of answering thèse questions; and while we are doing 
this, we can at the same time explain the command to the 
Israélites to destroy the nations of the land that they were 
to inherit, so that not a soûl shall be left of them alive; 
which we thought, and in a former chapter hâve said, we 
will answer, w^ien we shall reply to what Mr. Paine says 
about it in bis Age of Reason, but being that we can ac- 
complish two purposes at once, we will consider that ques- 
tion hère. 

Mr. Paine says: "Having thus shown, as grammatical 
" évidence implies, that Moses was not the writer of those 
" books " (we will consider the grammatical évidence of which 
Mr. Paine speaks, when we come to consider the question 
of authenticity of the Bible; at présent we are only consid- 
ering the Bible itself, irrespective of the question who the 
author of it was), " I will after making a few observa- 
" tions on the inconsistencies of the writer of the Book of 
" Deuteronomy, proceed to show from the historical and 
" chronolo^ical évidence contained in those books, that 
*' Moses was not, because he could not be the writer of 
" them ; and consequently that there is no authority for 
" believing that the inhuman and horrid butcheries of m en, 
" women and children told in those books, were donc as those 
" books say they were, at the command of God. It is a 
" duty incumbent on every true Deist, that he vindicate the 
" moral justice of God against the calumnies of the Bible." 

We hâve copied a good deal more than is needed to 
présent the question about the inhuman butchery of men, 
women and children, which is the question that we wish 
to consider; but we bave copied it ail for the purpose of 
exposing the folly of the manner in which the question is 
asked, and re-echoed by such minds as that of our friend 
In£:ersoll. 



OR KEY TO SCRtPTURE. I55 

Suppose that the Bible does not tell of the total de- 
struction of those nations, or that it is proven beyond a 
shadow of doubt that God did not command the total de- 
struction of them, would that indicate that God don't kill 
ofF men, women and children each and every minute of 
the day? We may be told that they die a natural death, 
and in answer to that we ask: Is not nature itself also 
the a^^ent and créature of God, and the acts of agents the 
acts of the principal? 

It would be just as reasonable for one to say that it 
is " incumbent on every true Deist to vindicate the moral 
" justice of God against the calumnies " of men who say 
that nature, God's agent, bas killed every man, woman and 
child that bas until now existed upon the face of the earth. 
It may be a proper question to ask: Does the Bible tell 
the truth to kill ail those nations? But to say it is incum- 
bent to vindicate God from the accusation of killing men, 
women and children, is not even fît for a foolish infîdel to 
ask, who don't see further than nature, and which certainly 
kills. And how a Deist who knows enough to believe in 
a God, how he comes to make the foolish expression of 
vindicating God from the accusation of killing man is more 
than we can account for, if it is not for the purpose of 
accomplishing the object which we ascribe the Age of 
Reason was written for. 

It bas heretofore been shown that death itself is no 
punishment and no cruelty. It is the predestined end for 
which every man, woman and child is born, and the sooner 
it pleases God to remove man from the earth the better it 
is for him, as lias been explained before, and there are 
several reasons why each and every man wishes to be on 
earth as long as he can. First, man's heart tells him that 
when he will come to settle up bis account with his prin- 



156 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

cipal, God, he will fînd himself bankrupt, with no assets 
whatever, and greatly indebted; and that is a condition 
which man tries to delay as long as he can in ail his busi- 
ness afFairs on earth; he waits until his creditors déclare 
him to be a bankrupt and take of him what they can, and 
it is not known whether the bankrupt law that governs 
the estâtes of soûls sets aside a homestead or makes any 
exemption for the bankrupt soûl. Hence there is even 
less désire amongst men to wind up their business of the 
soûl and be declared bankrupts than they hâve to wind up 
their bodily affairs and be declared bankrupts. It is true 
some men do go into voluntary bankruptcy, but it is 
equally true that some men kill themselves. 

And there is another reason why man don't want to 
leave the earth, and that is, he has an object to accomplish 
before he leaves the earth, which he believes it his duty 
and pleasure to see accomplished before he leaves the 
earth, such as the taking care of children who are not yet 
capable of taking care of themselves, and the like of it. 
The reason why Moses did not wish to die was, he desired 
to see his nation settled in the promised land, as we fînd 
he prayed to God when he found out he had to die: 
" And Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, Let the Lord, 
" the God of the spirits of ail flesh, appoint a man over the 
" congrégation, which may go out before them and which 
" may bring them in, that the congrégation of the Lord 
" be not as sheep which hâve no shepherd." Num., chap. 
27. It was his pleasure and certainly his duty, for God 
commanded him to lead and take care of the Israélites; 
hence he did not wish to die before he brought them into 
the promised land. 

The nations in question were insolvent in their busi- 
ness of their soûls. An inventory was taken of their spir- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I57 

itual stock by their Creator, God, four hundred years be- 
fore, they were closed out, and appointed an assignée by 
the name of Abraham, but an extention of time was given 
them until the fourth génération came and took possession 
by the right vested in them, as assignées of their earthly 
estâtes, and sent the bankrupt soûls to the court that had 
proper jurisdiction over them, and the bodies, which are 
but earth, were left on earth. 

Idolatry brought the soûls ot those nations to their 
bankrupt condition. They hâve squandered ail the wealth 
of their divine soûls upon idols; and it makes no différence 
on which idol a man squanders away the priceless wealth 
of his soûl, whether he worships an idol of the Egyptians, 
of the Amorites, Midionites, or he idolizes his own body, 
as ail those who fînd fault and detest the laws of God, Moses, 
and ail who hâve executed thèse laws. It would be con- 
trary to nature if they should not do so. It is indeed nat- 
ural and reasonable that a convict should detest the laws 
under which he is or is to be convicted, and hâte the exe- 
cutioners who exécute the law upon him. Their own 
heart tells them that they are guilty and that they will be 
executed according to the laws which they hâte, detest 
and abhor, and no man ought to blâme them for it. We 
certainly do not, any more than we blâme the violaters of 
the laws of the land for fînding fault with the laws of the 
land which inflict upon them the punishment they receive. 

It is true they are fully aware that they are doing 
wrong when they violate the law. The thief knows 
that he has neither légal nor moral right to the property 
that he steals; but it is equally true that habit has as strong 
a power over man as nature has, and he who, eithcr from 
necessity, choice or ignorance has become a wrongdoer, is 
as hard for him to wean himself ofF from it, as it would 
hâve been if it had been natural. 



158 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Poverty is mostly the cause of crime which is coni- 
mitted against the body, and for which the body is pun- 
ished, and ignorance, which i* the poverty of the soûl, is 
the cause of the crimes perpetrated by the soûl, for which 
the soûl will be, is and was punished. 

Thèse haters of the laws of God talk of morality and 
humanity. The only morality and humanity which they 
can possibly know of or practice, is what appertains to the 
body ; that is, if morality is a quality that belongs to or is 
a part of the body, unless we call the feelings of man's 
heart morality. But be thèse as they may, even in that 
morality they could find a lesson for them to study and 
practice, in the treatment that Moses has treated the Mid- 
ionites, about which their ignorance makes them raving 
mad and they talk about Moses. 

Death is no punishment in itself. The only reason 
w^hy man dreads death, is because his own conviction tells 
him that he is behind in the account ofhis soûl. A child 
who cannot contemplate its condition, and cannot be much, if 
anything, behind in its religions account, has no such dread 
for death as aged persons hâve. And therefore death is no 
punishment at ail. The death of a child is only a punish- 
ment to its parents. 

The seven nations of the land of Canaan were under sen- 
tence for over four hundred years, that is, from the time of 
the covenant with Abraham until the time of Joshua, to be 
utterly destroyed for the purpose of cleansing the land of 
their abominations and wickedness. The Midionites were 
not included in the seven nations of Canaan. Hence the 
officers that were sent to avenge the Midionites for what 
they had donc unto the Israélites, only destroyed the men, 
and left the women and children alive and took them as 
captives of war, which was the custom of war in those 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I59 

days. But the women were the cause and the actors of 
the sin for which the Israélites were punished, and for 
which the latter avenged themselves against the former; 
hence they, the women, who participated in the cause, 
ought also to particijDate in tlie punishment. But if the 
children, both maies and females, had been left alive and 
brought by their captors, the Israélites, into the land ot 
Canaan, they, the children, would hâve intermarried 
between themselves and revived the worship of their idols 
and their god Peor in the land which was long before dedi- 
cated to the worship of the Only One God of Israël. 

This idol worship would not only hâve brought a total 
destruction upon the posterity of the Midionites, but would 
also be a stumbling-block for Israël too, the same as it 
w^as when they were by Midion. The mode of worship 
by which the idol Peor was worshiped was a very win- 
ning one. The wives and daughters of its worshipers were 
religiously commanded to commit whoredom, for the pur- 
pose of increasing the worshipers of the idol — that was 
the practice ofthose nations, and such practice was danger- 
ous for the Israélites. 

Thus the women were destroyed because they partici- 
pated in the crime for which they were avenged or de- 
stroyed; and if the children, both maies and females, had 
been kept alive they would bave grown up among the 
Israélites and served their own idols, which would hâve 
caused, before long, not only their own destruction, but 
their practice would also become injurions to the Israélites, 
who w^ould also jDarticipate in the w^orship of the idols. 
And Moses and the laws of the Bible tried to remove ail 
facilities for idol w^orship from the Israélites. But by 
destroymg the maies the females had intermarried wHth the 
Israélites and became happy mothers in Israël, instead of 



l6o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

slaves and idol worshipers which they would hâve been if 
the maie captives had been kept alive, and be utterly de- 
stroyed before long for their idolatry. Hence Moses, in- 
stead ef being censured for killing the maie children of the 
Midionites, ought to be credited and praised for letting the 
females live, w^hich he did by removing the cause for 
which they w^ere to die. And let us bear in mind that 
death is only a prévention frpm vv^rong doing, and is not a 
punishment. 

Self-preservation is and always w^as a justification for 
destroying life. It is a national as v\^ell as an individual jus- 
tification. 

And there is another side to that question, which is: 
Is it true that the Israélites hâve destroyed the nations 
which the Bible tells us they did? The infidels bring 
up the question of the total destruction of the nations in 
question for the purpose of showing that the historical ac- 
count of the Bible is not true. We will therefore examine 
the purpose for which the question is brought up, which 
is this: It the Israélites bave not donc those things which 
the Bible says they did, then the Bible is not true; and if 
they hâve perpetrated ail the atrocities which the Bible 
says they did, is a question, could they hâve donc ail 
thèse things if God hath not commanded them to do it, 
and aided them to carry out His commands as far as their 
désire was to obey His commands. 

Is it natural or reasonable for a man to publish to the 
world that his ancestors were slaves for générations and 
centuries long; that they hâve ran away from their masters 
by making them believe they will only go the distance of 
three days' journey for the purpose of serving their God 
there, and hâve borrowed from their masters ail the gold, 
silver and costly garments they had; and that they hâve 



1 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTORE. i6i 

escaped to a couiitry beyond a certain river, which country 
was but eleven days' journey on foot from the country from 
whence they escaped; and that tbey hâve lingered forty 
years within that space which could be traveled on foot in 
eleven days; that they hâve asked permission of one nation 
to let them peaceably pass through bis domain, which he 
refused; then they asked the same of another, and that 
nation also refused them; but instead of going away from 
the second nation, as they did from the first, they not only 
forced their way through the country wdiich belonged to 
the second nation, but hâve utterly destroyed that nation 
by kiUing men, women and children, and hâve donc the 
same to another nation whose domain was joined to the 
domain of w^iom they asked permission to cross; and hâve 
not only possessed themselves of ail the wealth that thèse 
two nations iiave possessed, but five twenty-sixths of them 
hâve settled themselves on the domain of the two nations 
which they hâve utterly annihilated, and without any fear 
for the nations around them, and their masters who were 
also a mighty nation but ten or eleven days' journey behind 
them, hâve left their wives and children as well as the 
wealth they hâve robbed of the nations that they hâve 
killed, and they hâve crossed the river with the rest and 
hâve there destroyed seven strong nations by killing men, 
women and children, and hâve jDOssessed themselves of 
their wealth, and the five twenty-sixths hâve again re- 
crossed the river and joined their wives and children, 
and the rest hâve settled themselves on the domain ot 
the seven nations which they hâve robbed and murdered 
on the other side of the river. 

Would it be in accordance with reason for a man 
to say that his ancestors were slaves, thieves, robbers and 
cut-throats, and for no other purpose than to make the 
world believc a falsehood, which is, that God, of whom 



l62 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the world knew nothing, did command them to do ail 
thèse atrocities? We believe, and we think that the 
reader will also believe the same, namely: that the man 
who says it is reasonable for a man to publish to the 
world ail thèse for the purpose of telling to the world 
the falsehood that God told them to do it would be a fît 
cell-mate in some lunatic asylum with the man that said 
ail thèse for such purpose as herein stated. That is just 
what the Bible tells the Israélites hâve done. And the 
Bible is the publication wherein the Israélites hâve pub- 
lished ail thèse to the world ; and the infidels are the crazy 
men who say that the Israélites hâve said ail thèse in 
the Bible, hâve said so themselves for the last twenty 
centuries, and about nine millions of them say so now to 
the world, they proclaim it in ail the languages that are 
now spoken in the world, 

We ask, when, where, and how could the Jews as a 
nation hâve been made to believe and accept such a his- 
tory of themselves as the Bible, which makes them the 
descendants of those who hâve perpetrated ail thèse atro- 
cious acts, if they and the world had not known it to 
hâve been as the Bible says it was? 

They whose brains are deranged on biblical subjects 
say that the Jews were unanimously made to accept such 
history of themselves, and believe in it, by Ezra, the scribe, 
after they returned from. Babylon. Leaving out the ques- 
tion, how a nation would without a dissenting voice accept 
such a history of themselves if it had not been known to 
themselves and to the world that it was true, we only ask 
how comes the same Bible or accounts to be and be be- 
lieved in by the Jews or Israélites that were carried away 
to Assyria about two hundred years before Ezra was born? 

Next to the belief in but one God, is and has been 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 163 

the belief of the Jews in a spiritual Messiah. And whether 
it is as the Jews believe, that he will corne, or as the 
Christians believe he has corne, he is to be or was, accord- 
ing to the Bible, of the family of King David. And the 
biblical account of the actions of David and of his ances- 
tors is a great deal more and better proof that the biblical 
history is true than ail that the defective brains of infidel 
writers and orators hâve produced. 

The telling of King David's actions in the matter of 
Bathsheba, the w^ife of Uriah, which is so defamatory to 
the character of the king^; and his genealogy, first from 
Tamar and Judah, father-in-law and daughter-in-law, then 
from Boaz and Ruth, shows beyond a doubt or question' 
that the object of the authors of the Bible was to record 
true tacts, without gloss, favor or shame. Where or when 
did ever a nation exist that would hâve accepted, maintained 
and published to the world a history containing such 
defamations upon the character of its royal and through 
the whole time most respected and honored family, if the 
things in question had not been universally known facts, so 
much so that the trying to keep them out of the historical 
annals of the nation would falsify the history of the 
nation, and would expose the historian to the charge of 
recording the glossy part of the history of those he 
wrote of, instead of recording truth. 

No reasonable man will or ever did say that the history 
of a nation is not true because it records disgraceful acts of 
the nation, and the latter does not deny the actions in 
question, but confirms them by telling that its history is 
true, as the Jews say and always hâve said that the biblical 
history is true. 

Nothing else but insanity could be ascribed as the 
cause why a nation sbould accept and majntain a history 



164 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

which defames their origin, as the Bible does the origin of 
the Israélites, if the defamatory subject stated therein had 
not been true, and known to the world to be so. 

Would it not hâve been more in accordance with rea- 
son, if the author or authors of the Bible wanted (at any 
time, we care not when) to make the Israélites accept the 
history, of which they knew nothing till that time, to tell 
them in that history that God sent angels who destroyed 
the men, women and children that hâve constituted the 
nine nations, vs^hich were the owners and inhabitants of 
the land which they, the Israélites, were occupying then? 
Would not that also be a better inducement to make them 
accept their religion and belief, of which they knev^ noth- 
ing imtil that time, as the insane infidels say it was? 

We believe that every reasonable man will coincide 
with us, that if the Bible had stated something like what 
we hâve said, namely: that God sent angels to destroy the 
nations in question, and had given a glossy picture of the 
character of the Israélites as a nation, that it would then 
be reasonably subject to questioning the truth of what it 
says. But being as it is telling that the father of the nation 
and the founder of the belief, Abraham, told his wife to 
say that she is his sister, so that he may be rewarded 
for her sake (which will be the subject in the next chap- 
tcr), that his posterity were slaves for générations long; 
that they ran away from slavery, killed men, women and 
children of nine nations, and possessed themselves of their 
land, which last fact cannot be denied, for it is well known 
without the Bible telling us, that the Israélites did possess 
the land in question, and that it was formerly occupied by 
other nations, and the fact of the existence of the nation 
and its indestructibility until the présent day, proves be- 
yond a doubt, and leaves not a reasonable ground to ques- 
tion its truthfulness. 



OR KUY TO SCRIPTURE. 165 

" Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside 
me?" Isaiah, 44:8 

The existence of the Jews is évidence of the truth of 
the Bible, and the latter is the évidence of the former. 
No one but a brain-defective man on biblical subjects, 
whom language désignâtes by the name of infîdel, ever did 
does or ever will question the truth fulness of the Bi- 
ble with ail thèse facts before him, and we ought not to 
abuse nor misuse them, for they are in a measure a reli- 
gious necessity. They are to religion what death is to the 
body. There are a great many people who, if they w^ould 
not be afraid of death, would never use a doctor when 
they get sick, but would sufFer weakness and pain, and 
wait until the sickness w^ould pass away itself, if people 
would bave no fear of drifting into the death, infîdelism, 
they would remain in their religions weakness, rather than 
go to a religions doctor to bave their weakness and pain 
cured by administering to them some religions truth. And 
they answer another very necessary and indispensable pur- 
pose for the body of religion, which is that of cleaning it, 
they are the discharging organs which ail bodies hâve, and 
without which no body can exist. 

There are a good many ideas which came ont of the 
body of religion through them. Each and every question 
that they ask compels man to discharge some erroneous and 
false ideas or practice from the body of bis religion, and 
replace the vacuum with biblical truth. 

Every new sickness of the body compels the doc- 
tors to search the laws of nature for a cure of that 
sickness, and in that way the world becomes wiser and 
better. So each and every question that this class of 
unfortunate men bring up to afFect the religions body 
compels the religions doctors and chemists to search the 



l66 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 

laws of the Bible for the purpose of curing that defect. 
Hence this class of people, who are called infidels, are as 
hard to dispense with, and are as useful, and are to be 
loved and esteemed the same as death and sickness are. 
We will conclude this subject by letting them be what 
they are; and they are what they always will be; and 
always will be what they always were! 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I67 



CHAPTER XIX. 

ABRAHAM — WHY HE LEFT THE PLACE OF HIS NATIVITY, 

AND WHY HE TOLD HIS WIFE TO SAY THAT 

SHE WAS HIS SISTER. 

The biblical history apparently gives no reason why 
Terah, the father of Abraham, left " Ur of the Chaldees." 
But if the word " Ur " had been translated and the mean- 
ing of the word became known as it is in Hebrew, and 
of which we hâve a brief historical account in the Tahnud; 
and Maimonide, in the thirty-ninth chapter of the third 
part of his " Moureh Nebuchim," names several Ciialdiac 
books which were translated into the Arabie language and 
were in existence in his time, which gave the full history 
of Abraham and the reason why he and his father left 
Chaldee and went to live in the land of Canaan. But 
before we will quote what the Talmud and Maimonide 
say about it, we will fîrst examine the language in which 
the Bible itself tells us about the subject in question. It 
says: 

" And Terah lived seventy years. And he begat 
" Abram, Nahor and Haran." 

In the next verse it repeats thus: 

" Now thèse are the générations of Terah: Terah be- 
" gat Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran .begat Lot. 
" And Haran di'ed before his father Terah in the land of 



l68 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and 
" Nahor took them wives; the name of Abram's wife was 
" Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah, the 
" daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and the father 
" of Iscah." 

The Word " Ur " is apparently the name of a place in 
Chaldea. But if that had been, or if it was intended to 
convey the idea that it means the name of a place, it 
would say "Ur in Chaldea," not "Ur of the Chaldees." The 
definite article " The " and the word " Chaldees " make 
it in the plural number. It is no more proper than to sa}^, in 
Washington of the Americans. But it certainly would be 
very proper to say, he died in the flames of the Americans 
The word " Ur " means flames. The history of it is this : 
The Chaldees worshiped the visible bodies of the skies; 
the sun was their greatest deity, and they served it with 
fîre. They used to cause their children to pass through 
fîre, and punished by fire for irréligions deeds. Abram 
began to question the correctness of their ideas. He per- 
ceived that they were but créatures, and that there was or 
must be a Creator, and at last became convinced that there 
was a Creator, and had begun to convince others of the 
same facts, and he had demolished some images, for which 
he and his brother Haran were thrown into the flames 
(Ur) of the Chaldees by the order of their ruler, Nimrod, 
wherein Haran perished and from which Abram was saved. 
And because Abram ^vas saved from the flames, Nimrod 
feared that this fact would convince his subjects that Abram 
was right. He therefore banished Abram from his do- 
minion and his father, Terah, went with him. And both 
Abram and Nahor married the daughters of their brother 
Haran. Iscah and Sarai is the same person. 

" Now. the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee ont of 
" thy country and of thy kindred, and from thy fiither's 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 169 

" house, unto a land that I will show thee. And Abram 
" took his wife Sarai, and Lot his brother's son, and ail 
" their substance that they had gathered, and the soûls 
" that they had gotten in Haran, and came into the land 
" of Canaan. And Abram journeyed, going on still to- 
" ward the south. And there was a famine in the land, 
" and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there." 
Gen., chap. 12. 

The above quotation from the Bible also confirms the 
Talmudical and other historical accounts of Abraham, which 
say that he was traveling from place to place as a mis- 
sionary, and persuading people to believe in the One God, 
aided by his wife and lier brother Lot, whose father per- 
ished in the fiâmes " (Ur) of the Chaldees," " and the 
soûls that they had obtained in Haran." That is, 
those whom they had converted while they were 
in Haran. The soûls that they had gotten in Haran 
means those whom they had converted into the belief in 
the One God of Abraham. It cannot mean children, for 
the Bible tells repeatedl}- that they were childless at that 
time. Neithcr can it mean servants; the latter are desig- 
nated " trained servants born in his house." Gen., chap. 1 4. 

And for that purpose they now started for Egypt, 
and as they were about to enter Egypt, the subjects of the 
thoughts and conversation naturally was, how to com- 
mence to operate upon the minds of the Egyptians. What 
method or circumstance could best bring them before the 
learned men of Egypt. To which Abraham said to Sa- 
rai, his wife: 

" Behold, now I know that thou art a fair woman in 

appearance," and I believe you will be the cause which 

will enable us to accomplish our purpose. But if you will 

say that you are my wife, they may kill me, and you 



îyo A COLLECTION OP THOUGHTS, 

they Avill let live. Hence, " I pray thee, say thou art 
" my sister; that may be well with me for thy sake; and 
" my soûl shall live because of thee." 

Abraham knew that, through Sarai his wife, he was 
to accomplish the object of his mission, but was afraid that 
if it should be known that she was his wife, he could not 
accomplish his purpose, and that would hâve been the de- 
struction to his soûl, whose désire and purpose of being 
upon the earth, was to save mankind from the destruction 
of their soûls by reclaiming them from idolatr3\ And it 
was as he foresaw. 

The appearance of Sarai attracted the attention of the 
Egyptians; and it was reported to the king of Egypt, 
where she was taken to; and that was the cause w^hich 
brought Abraham into the house of the king and among 
the wise men of Egypt, and discussed with them, as it is 
related by Josephus who, in speaking of Abraham, says : 

" Berosus mentions our father, Abram, without nam- 
" ing him, when he says thus: ' In the tenth génération 
" ' after the flood, there was amongst the Chaldeans a man 
" ' righteous and great and skillful in the celestial science. 
"' But Hecataeous does more than barely mention him, 
"' for he composed and left behind him a book concern- 
" ' ing him.' And Nicolas of Damascus, in the fourth book 
" of his history, says thus: ' Abraham reigned at Damas- 
"' eus, being a foreigner who came with an army out of 
"' the land above Babylon, called the land of the Chalde- 
"' ans, but after a long time, removed with his people 
" ' from that country and went to the land then called Ca- 
" ' naan, and now, Judea. Of his posterity, we relate their 
" * history in another work.' Now the name of Abra- 
" ham," says Josephus, " is even still famous in the land of 



ÔR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 17I 

" Damascus; and there is shown a village named from 
" him the Habitation of Abraham." 

We copy ail what Josephus says about Abraham, be- 
cause it is about the same that is found in the Talmud and 
what Maimonide says he saw in Chaldean books, trans- 
lated into Arabie. And being that what Josephus says, is 
either known to the reader, or he can fînd it in the 
books of that author, we therefore copy from that author, 
instead of translating what the others say. And in speak- 
ing of Abraham being in Egypt it says: 

" He (theking of Egypt) also made him a large pres- 
" ent in money, and gave him leave to enter into conver- 
" sation with most learned men among the Egyptians, 
" from which conversations his virtue and réputation be- 
" came more conspicuous than they had been before. He 
" communicated to them arithmetic and delivered to them 
" the science of astronomy ; for before Abraham came into 
" Egypt, they were unacquainted with this part of learn- 
" ing, for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt 
" and from thence to the Greeks." 

We ask any and every father whether he would not 
rather die childless, than to hâve a child and know that 
his child and his posterity, fîve or six générations, should 
be " strangers in a land that is not theirs, and shall 
serve and be afflicted for four hundred years," as Abraham 
was told, before he had a child at ail. 

And, indeed, it is apparently not in accordance with 
justice and mercy. Abraham, a pious and upright man, 
so much so that God tells him, " Fear not, Abram; I 
" am thy shield; thy reward is exceedingly great." 

To which Abram replied: " Lord God, what 
" wilt thou ofive me? I am childless. To me thou hast 



172 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" given no seed; and lo! one born in my house, is mine 
" heir." 

To which the Lord said to him: " This shall not be 
" thine heir; but he that shall corne ont of thine bowels 
t' shall be thine heir." And told him that his children 
would be as numberless as the stars are. *■'• And he (Ab- 
" ram) believed in the Lord; and He (the Lord) counted it 
" to him for righteousness." 

But why were his children to be afflicted for four 
hundred years? It certainly cannot be said that the afflic- 
tion of the unborn children of Abraham was for some 
transgression of Abraham; we are nowhere told that he 
ever did transgress; and in this instance we are told it was 
counted to him a righteousness. Neither can it be said 
that it was for some wrong that the unborn children would 
do, for it most certainly would not be right to decree a 
punishment and punish before the crime was committed, 
and still more so, before the committer of the crime was 
born ! But Abraham seems to hâve been perfectly satisfîed 
with the causeless affliction of his children. Neither is it 
reasonable to suppose that the promise that "the fourth or 
sixth génération, at the end of the four hundred years, 
would come out with great wealth from the land of their 
affliction. What father would like that his son, grandson, 
great grand-son, and so on up to the sixth génération from 
him, should be afflicted and enslaved, for the purpose that 
the last may be made hch? 

And again, if it was the will of God that the poster- 
ity of Abraham should be afflicted, why were they^ who 
afflicted them, to be judged for afflicting them? 

There is but one answer to ail thèse questions, and 
that is this: The posterity of Abraham were not to be 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 1 73 

afflicted for their sins, but for the sins of others, or more 
properly speaking, to save others from their sins. They 
were to do the same that their father Abraham was doing, 
and that is, to serve God by saving His créatures whom 
He hath created in His own image and given them each 
a soûl, which is a part of Himself. The only way in 
which a man can serve God is to benetit mankind in vvhat 
he cannot help himself. Each and every man and w^oman 
can help themselves, if they are in good health and not out 
of usual circumstances, to what they know they need for their 
body; and if they are not in good health, or out of usual 
circumstances, then helping them in what they need for 
the body is also serving God. But the greatest help that 
one man can give to another is in that of w4iich the other 
don't know that he is in need; and because he knows not 
that he is in need thereof he don't try to help himself. 
The soûl is imperceptible to man; hence he knows not her 
want or désire; and that want must be supplied to each 
man by some other man; and not only must he whoca/2, help 
another with what the other needs for his soûl, but he must 
also demonstrate and convince the other that he needs that 
help, the same as a doctor must convince a person who 
don't know that he is sick; hc not only must tell him what 
to do to cure himself of the sickness, but must also con- 
vince him that he is sick, or he will not do what he tells 
him to do to get rid of his unknown sickness. Bodily 
sickness comes from neglecting or violating, either know- 
ingly or unknowingly, the laws of nature which are en- 
acted to be observed by the body, and sickness convinces 
man that he bas violated the laws for the body; and just as 
sickness demonstrates to man that he bas violated the laws 
of nature which the body must observe, and he seeks relief 
from the laws of nature for his suifering body. So is 
trouble convincingr to man that he bas violated the natural 



174 ^ COLLECTION OP" THOUGHTS, 

laws which the same legislator, God, hath enacted for the 
soûl that hath enacted the laws of nature which govern 
the body. And there are four good reasons why God 
don't at once punish man for his violation of the laws that 
He hath enacted for the soûl to observe, as He doth pun- 
ish the body when it violâtes the laws which it (the body) 
has to observe. 

First. The soûl is wholly invisible to man, and not 
fuUy compréhensible; hence it would be contrary to justice 
to punish one for a thing that he has done, which he 
could not see nor understand. The moral justice of man 
even, is not to punish a man for killing another man if he 
killed him without seeing him, and without knowing that 
he did kill him; and that moral justice which man has 
in him cornes from God, and consequently God Himself 
will not do an injustice to punish man for violating the 
laws which the invisible soûl is to observe. 

Secondly. If God would punish man for his viola- 
tion of the laws which his soûl is to observe, it would be 
compelling man to act contrary to his will, and would 
make man a mère brute instead of the image of his 
Maker. The power that man has to choose and reason 
are parts of what makes man the image of his Maker. 

Third. The next reason is, God is too merciful to 
punish a man for not doing a thing which he cannot 
see and comprehend, without an object from which the 
mind can delineate. 

FouRTH. And the other reason is, if God would 
punish man for his violation of the laws of nature that 
his soûl has to perform, the same as He doth punish 
him for violating the laws that his body is to observe, 
He would hâve to punish every man each and every time 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I75 

he violâtes one of thèse laws, the same as the body is 
punished. 

The sufFering that one man suffers in the body is no 
reHef to another man who siifFers from the same cause. 
And if the laws of nature were to punish man for his 
violating the laws which his soûl is to observe, the same 
as he is punished by the laws of nature for his violation 
of the laws which his body is to observe, it would be out of 
the power (so to speak) of God to forgive him for his mis- 
doings, and man would hâve nothing to pray to God for, 
and would not be subject to the mercies of God. There- 
fore God holds out an object to man, from which his mind 
can delineate and reason; and when man becomes convinced 
that he is spiritually sick or defective, and refuses to cure 
himself by repenting, then no doctor can help him; he 
must die a spiritual death. And Abraham was, and his 
posterity were to be and are, the objects from which the 
human race were to delineate and convince themselves of 
their spiritual infîrmities, and cure themselves by the cure 
of repentance. 

And that is what Abraham agreed with God. He 
agreed that they should be afflicted for the term of four 
hundred years, for the purpose that the nation whom they 
would serve and that would afïlict them should either be 
saved, or cease to be a nation when the seed of Abraham 
were amongst them. 

The power of the Roman Empire grew and pros- 
pered until they brought the seed of Abraham amongst 
them ! 

Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, had possessed himself 
of the land of Israël — the land that was given to Abraham 
and to his seed for the service that they had served God — 
and had endeavored to settle it with nations who knew not 
the service of the God of Abraham. 



176 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, endeavored to settle na- 
tions who knew nothing of the service of the God of 
Abraham in the land which God gave to Abraham and to 
his seed for their services, but did not succeed in his en- 
deavors, for they whom he sent there to settle w^ere de- 
stroyed, until he found ont the cause of their destruction, 
which was, they could not hve in that land without serv- 
ing the God of Abraham, which service they learned from 
the afflicted seed of Abraham, the captives whom the king 
took to his country and was compelled to send some of 
them back to their land for the purpose of teaching the 
nations whom he had sent to inhabit that land the service 
of the God of Abraham. 

And where are now the nations who took the seed of 
Abraham from the land which God gave unto them 
for their serving Him, and took them into their own 
land, but did not take upon themselves the service of the 
God of Abraham? They are ail utterly destro3'ed, except 
those who took the service as well as the seed of Abra- 
ham. 

The history of the world corroborâtes the history of 
the Bible, and shows that no nation could successfuUy live 
for any length of time in the land which God gave to 
Abraham, without serving the God of Abraham; nor could 
any nation successfuUy keep the seed of Abraham in the 
land of the former without betaking themselves to the 
service of the God of Abraham. 

Abraham made a co venant with God wherein he agreed 
that he and his seed should serve that God, and the land 
was part of the considération for the service; and it is cer- 
tainly no more than right, just and proper that he who 
takes the considération must perform the service for which 
the considération was given. Hence, whoever takes the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I77 

land that God gave to Abraham and to his children in 
considération for their service, must either perform the 
service or be punished for taking what does not belong to 
him. 

The service that Abraham did, and that his seed were 
to perform, was to teach mankind the knowledge and the 
service of their God. They and their hind were appro- 
priated to this service. Had they faithfully carried out 
their part of the covenant by serving God, as they had 
agreed, and as is specified in the covenant, the service 
would hâve been performed, and they would, to this day, 
hâve been successfully and prosperously in their land. 

The vs^orld w^ould hâve inquired for the cause of their 
prosperity, and would hâve easily ascertained that it was 
the belief in, and serving, the true and only God, which 
were the causes that made them prospérons. And the re- 
suit of that knowledge would hâve been that the w^hole 
human race w^ould hâve accepted the belief in and ser- 
vice of that same God. And the Bible tells, and reli- 
gion teaches, that this will be the resuit at the end. (Last 
chapter of Isaiah.) 

But Israël, instead of teaching the nations of the world 
the service of his God, while he was in prosperity and 
peace in his own land, bas himself forsaken the service of 
his God, and bas served the gods of the nations that were 
around him. Had they been allowed to remain in their 
land and serve the idols of the nations, the knowledge and 
service of the God of Abraham would bave been forgot- 
ten. And therefore God, who by virtue of the covenant 
with their father, Abraham, and with them, was entitled 
to their service, caused them to be removed from their 
land, and caused them to be divided amongst the whole 
human race, and in that condition God made them serve 



1^8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

him up to the présent tlme, and will continue to make 
them serve Him in that way vmtil the whole human 
race will acknowledge and serve the God of Abraham. 
And the progress that the human race has made in the 
knowledge and service of God from the time of the dis- 
persion of the seed of Abraham amongst them, until the 
présent time, makes us believe that the purpose of their 
service v^ill soon be accompHshed, and that ail flesh will 
soon come to the worship of the Lord of Hosts. 

The subject of this chapter wnll be more fully explained 
and wnll be more perceptible when we shall come to speak 
and explain. Why God said and did harden the heart of 
Pharaoh not to send the Israélites out of his land, which 
might be very proper to make the subject of the succeeding 
chapter; but, thatis a subject which extends itself to the présent 
time, and will continue until the time that the purpose of the 
covenant that God hath made with Abraham, and with his 
posterity will be accompHshed ; and, as we hâve said in 
our préface, that that is to be the finishing subject of this 
work, we will theretore drop that subject for the prés- 
ent, and make the family of Judah the subject of the suc- 
ceeding chapter, which is one of the questions raised by 
Bishop Colenso in his attack upon the historical veracity of 
the Pentateuch. 



OR KEY TO SCKIPTURE. 



179 



CHAPTER XX. 

WERE HEZRON AND HAMUL, THE TWO GRANDSONS OF 

JUDAH, BORN ABOUT TWENTY YEARS AFTER 

THE MARRIAGE OF JUDAH, AS 

COLENSO SAYS THEY 

WERE ? 

The BishojD assumes and asserts that ail the children of 
Jacob, except Benjamin, were boni during the second seven 
years that Jacob served Laban for Rachel, and that Jacob 
was but twenty ^^ears in Haran. 

It is true the Bible tells us that Jacob served Laban 
twenty years, but telling how long one worked for another 
one, is not telling how long the worker lived in the place 
where he worked for the other one. And from thèse two 
assumptions, the Bishop concludes that Judah was but three 
years older tlian Joseph, and Joseph was, as the Bible 
says he was, about eighteen years old at the time hîs 
breth]-en sold him. Hence, says the Bishop, Judah, who 
was but three years older than Joseph, was at that time 
twenty-one years old, at the time Joseph was sold, and the 
Bible tells of Judah's marriage after it tells of the sale of 
Joseph. Consequently, says the Bishop, that Judah was 
married after he was twenty-one years old, and that he 
was about forty-two years old at the time he came with 
his fadier into Egypt. He dérives the last conclusion from 



l8o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the fact that the Bible says Joseph was thirty years old 
when he explained unto Pharaoh his dreams; and the 
seven years of plenty which followed, makes thirty-seven 
years; and the Bible says that Jacob came into Egypt at 
the end of the second year of famine; or Joseph told Jacob 
that there were then to be five yearsof famine, which makes 
the âge of Joseph thirty-nine years at the time his father 
came to him. 

And the Bishop says Judah was but three years older 
than Joseph, consequently, the former was forty-two when 
the latter was thirty-nine, or at the time the former came 
with his father into Egypt. And in the biblical account 
of the seventy who came ^vith Jacob into Egypt, it names 
Hetzron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez, and grandsons of 
Judah, amongst the seventy. And he knows enough to 
say that it is a natural impossibility for one to hâve two 
great-grandchildren born from the same grandson in about 
twenty years from the time that their great-grandfather 
was married. 

It is truc Hetzron and Hamul w^ere grandsons of Judah, 
but, under the circumstances, they were equal to great- 
grandchildren, because Judah was the third husband of 
Tamar. Her first and second husbands were the sons of 
Judah. She first married Er, the first born son of Judah, 
He died, and she married Onan, the second son of Tudah. 
and he died. She w^as then sent away to her father's house 
and wait until Shelah, the third son of Judah, will grow up. 
And the Bishop concludes that it must hâve at least taken 
four years from the time that she w^as married to her first 
husband, Er, until she deceived Judah and conceived of him. 
(The last calculation or assumption may be reasonable.) 
Hence, if she had conceived of her first husband, Er, and 
begat Pharez, or any other child, that child would hâve 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. TOI 

been the grandson of Judah, and could hâve been boni aboiit 
four years before he was born as the son of Judah. And if 
that child, or the son of Er, had begat Hezron and Hamul, 
they would hâve been the great-grandchildren of Judah, and 
could hâve been born four years before they w^ere born as 
grandsons of Judah, 

And four from tw^enty-one leaves seventeen years from 
the time of Judah's marriage for Hamul, the youngest of tiie 
two grandsons in question to hâve been born; and say that 
there was but one year différence in the âge of the grand- 
sons, would leave but sixteen years from the time of Judah's 
marriage nntil Hezron vs^as born; and the circumstances 
heretofore stated, and which are found in the Bible, make 
him, Hezron, equal to a great-grandson of Judah. It is 
true, we are compelled to admit, that it is impossible for one 
to hâve a sfreat-g^randson born to him as the leo^itimate off- 
springof a marriage that was consummated sixteen years before 
the grandson was born. But we must ask the Bishop if he 
knows enougii to say, which he does say, that it is a natural 
impossibility to be so. Why did he not know enough to 
know that he will be lau^hed at for assuminsr and makinof 
others believe that it is so? The Bible does not say so. 
Let us now see whethcr the Bible leaves a vacuum for such 
assumptions as the Rev. Bishop assumes. 

We judge a man's ability and motives by his actions. 
Hence it would be useless and improper for us to say that 
the Bishop's ignorance or insincerity caused him to draw 
such conclusions. The Bishop's ability as a mathematical 
calculator exhibits itself in the sixth chapter of this work. 
We will now examine the biblical account of the subject 
in question, and see from what he draws his hypothesis, 
and let tue reader draw his own conclusions from the bib- 
lical history which we will présent to him, and conclude 



l82 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

for himself whether Colenso is entitled to bishopsy, knav- 
ery or gross ignorance. 

We are told in the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis that 
Isaac, the father of Jacob, was forty years old when lie 
married; and in chapter twenty-six, in the same book, we 
are told that Esau, the twin brother of Jacob, also married 
and had two wives when he was forty years old. Joseph, 
the son of Jacob, was married and had two sons before 
the years of famine begun, at which time he was but 
thirty-seven years old, as we are told. (Genesis, chapter 
forty-one.) His brother Benjamin, who was at least seven 
years younger than Joseph, because Joseph was born be- 
fore Jacob began to serve for the spotted sheep, for which 
he served six years (Genesis, chapter thirty), and Benjamin 
was born by Beth Lehem, after Jacob came back from 
Laban and dwelled sometime in the city of Shechera. Gen. 
chap. 34 and 35. 

Allowing but a year §or his journey, the time that he 
dwelt in Shechem^ and that Joseph may hâve been born 
before his father began to serve for the spotted sheep, and 
the six years that he served makes seven years at least that 
Benjamin was born later than Joseph; hence Joseph was 
thirty-nine years old, which was the time his father came 
to him into Egypt, as has heretofore been shown, at which 
time his brother Benjamin, who was seven years younger, 
could hâve been no more than thirty-two years old, at 
which time he. Benjamin, was the father of ten children. 
Gen., chap. 46. 

And every one of Jacob's children, Reuben, the oldest, 
could according: to Colenso's calculation hâve been but six 
years older than Joseph, for he says that Reuben was born 
at the end of the first year of the second seven years that 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 183 

Jacob served for Rachel, and Joseph was born at the end 
of the same seven years. Hence, when Joseph was thirty- 
nine years old Reuben must hâve been forty-fîve years 
old, and they were ail married and had children. 

Thus we see that Isaac, his son Esau, and twelve 
grand- children of the former, were ail married between 
the âge of thirty (as in the case of Benjamin) and forty 
years. 

Let us now see how old Jacob must hâve been at the 
time he was married, if he was no more than twenty years 
in Haran. 

If, as Colenso says, Jacob was but twenty years in 
Haran, and Joseph was born six years before he, 
Jacob, left that place, then Joseph was born fourteen 
years after Jacob came to that place, or after he served 
Laban fourteen years. We find that Jacob was one hun- 
dred and thirty years old at the time he came into Egypt, 
(Gen., chap. 47,) at which time Joseph was thirty-nine 
years old. Add to the thirty-nine years, the âge of Joseph, 
the fourteen years that Jacob was at Laban's house before 
the former was born, fourteen and thirty-nine make fifty- 
three. Subtract this fîfty-three years from the hundred 
and thirty, the âge of Jacob at the time he migrated into 
Egypt, leaves seventy -seven years as the âge of Jacob at the 
time he came to Laban's house. Thus seventy-seven at the 
time he came to Laban. In fourteen years after he came 
to Laban Joseph was born; fourteen and seventy-seven 
make ninety-one, as the âge of Jacob at the birth of Jo- 
seph. Add the ninety-one years to the thirty-nine, the âge 
of Joseph at the time his father came to him in Egypt, 
ninety-one and thirty-nine make the one hundred and 



IS4 

thirty years, the âge of Jacob at the time he came into 
Egypt. 

Colenso assigns no cause and gives no reason why 
Jacob did not marry between the âges of thirty and 
forty years, the same as his father, tvvin brother, and his 
twelve sons did. There can be no cause or reason found 
for it in the Bible, because the Bible shows a plain im- 
possibility to bave been as Colenso says it was, which will 
appear before we close this subject. 

Isaac, the father of Jacob, was born when Sarah, his 
mother, was ninety years old, and a year before he was 
born the angel told her that " at this time next year " she 
" will hâve a son." She did not believe the angel, and 
mockingly said; " Shall I return to the time of bearing 
" after my old âge?" (Heb. version.) " And Abraham 
« and Sarah were old and well STRICKEN IN AGE; 
" and ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 
" Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, after I 
" am waxed old shall I hâve pleasure, and my lord (hus- 
" band) being old also?" Gen., chap. 18. 

And not only did Sarah disbelieve what the angel said 
in regard to her bearing a son at the âge of eighty-nine 
years, and laughed because he said so, but Abraham him- 
self laughed and could not believe when the "Alohim " 
(w^hich is a name that sometimes désignâtes God and some- 
times it means an angel) told him that Sarah would hâve 
a son. 

" And God said unto Abraham, as for Sarah, thy wife, 
" I will bless her and give thee a son of her, and she shall 
" be a mother of many nations ; kings of people shall be 
" of her. And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed, 
" and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 185 

" that is a hundred years old ? And shall Sarah, that is 
" ninety years old, bear?" 

Now if Abraham and Sarah hâve laughed at the idea 
of giving birth to a child at the âge of eighty-nine years, 
and hâve said eighty-nine years old v^as well stricken in 
âge; and it says that nature has forsaken her (" it ceased 
to be with Sarah after the manner of women ") at or long 
before the âge of eighty-nine, and did not believe it pos- 
sible even when God and an angel told them of it; the 
question is, w^hat else can the reader do than laugh at and 
disbelieve vvhat Colenso says about Jacob coming to Laban 
at the âge of seventy-seven years, and propose to serve 
seven years and did serve seven years for Rachel before he 
married her, v^hich would bave made him eighty-four years 
at the time of bis marriage, and w^hich is but five years 
younger than bis grandmother Sarah was, and.she laughed 
at the angel for telling her something similar to w^hat Co- 
lenso tells to the world now, w^hich can't help but make 
the reader and the world laugh at Colenso for saying such 
an unnatural and unreasonable thing. 

We believe that it is very reasonable to suppose and 
assume that Rachel would bave said: " If I am to marry 
" a man, at ail, that is already seventy-seven years old, I 
" will rather marry him now than wait for him when he 
" will be eighty-four years old." 

And Jacob, if he had been as old as Colenso says he 
was at the time in question, he would bave proposed to 
marry fîrst and serve the seven years after the marriage, 
as he has served the second seven years. And it cannot 
well be said that Laban would not hâve given bis daugh- 
ter to Jacob before he obtained the service from the latter, 
because we find that the former has himself made the 



l86 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

proposition that Jacob shall marry his second daughter a 
week after the consummation of the marriage of the fîrst 
daughter, and serve him seven years for lier after he mar- 
ried lier, which proposition was accepted and performed by 
Jacob. We must stop to investigate that iinreasonable part 
of the subject further, because it is too ridiculous and too 
laughable. 

We will now see how the biblical account of the birth 
of Jacob's children coincides with the account that Colenso 
gives, and see what the Bible says on that subject. 

Colenso says that ail the sons of Jacob, from Reuben 
until Joseph, including the two named, and his daughter 
Dinali, twelve in ail, were ail boni during the second seven 
years of service that Jacob served for Rachel. Let us see 
w^liat the Bible says about it: " And wlien the Lord saw 
" that Leali was hated lie opened lier womb, but Rachel 
" was a barren." This plainly tells us that Leali did not 
conceive until after she was hated, and until after Rachel 
was considered a barren. Hence it cannot be supposed 
that Leali conceived witliin a week, a month, or two, even 
within a year after she got married. It cannot reasonably 
be supposed that she conceived until after Rachel was sup- 
posed and believed to be a barren, and if a women does 
not conceive within a year or two years after she gets 
married, it would certainly be very unreasonable to sup- 
pose and believe that she was a barren. Isaac did not con- 
sider and believe that his wife Rebecca was a barren until 
after twenty years from the time they were married, at which 
time he prayed that God may open her womb. We come to 
that conclusion from the fact that we are told in the Bible 
that he was forty years old wlien he got married, and that 
he was sixty years old wlien Jacob and Esau were born, 
and they were born shortly after he prayed for children. 



OR ki:y to scripture. 187 

However, there is nothing in the Bible nor in 
reason which can dispute, that some considérable time 
of the second seven years that Jacob served Laban had 
elapsed before Leah conceived and begat her first son, 
whom she called Reuben, because she was afflicted and 
God saw her affliction. And she begat another, and called 
his name Simeon. And she conceived again and bare 
a son, and she called his name Levi. And she begat an- 
other, and she called his name "Judah; and left bearing." 

" And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no chil- 
" dren, Rachel envied her sister. And she gave her hand- 
" maid, Bilhah, unto Jacob for a wife. And she begat 
"Dan; and she conceived again and begat another son, and 
" she called him Naphtali. And vs^hen Leah saw^ that she 
" stopped bearing, she took Zilpah, her maid, and gave 
" her Jacob to wûfe." 

And Leah's maid also begat two sons. At about that 
time Reuben was big enough to be out in the harvest 
field, and must hâve already understood and known the 
use that women made of mandrakes, for he picked up some 
and gave it to his mother* 

And Leah conceived again and begat a son and called 
his name Issacher. And she conceived again and she be- 
gat Jacob a sixth son, and she called his name Zebulum. 
And she afterwards bare a daughter, and called her Di- 
hah. 



*Mandrakes were usedby women as a perfume, as we are told by Solomon 
in his songs, " The mandrakes gave a smell. And they were also used as a 
help to the lack of fecundity, a chiJd of three or four years, which is the 
ago that Reuben must ha\^e been, if he was born at about the close of the first 
or the beginuing- of the second year after his parents were married, as Co- 
lenso says he was, could know nothing of the use of mandrakes. 



lS8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

And then it says: " God remembered Rachel and 
" opened her womb," and she bare a son, and she called 
him Joseph. 

And it says: " And it was as, or when, Rachel had 
borne Joseph, Jacob said unto Laban, ' Send me away, 
"' that I may go unto my ovvn place, and to my coun- 
u; try.'" 

Hère may also be asked: What had the birth of Jo- 
seph to do with the service which Jacob had to serve La- 
ban? If the time of service had expired, why did he not say, 
the same as he said when the first seven years had ended, 
"Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled," the birth of Jo- 
seph co.uld certainly not be used by Jacob as a cause w^hy Laban 
should send him away, if they had not expired; and if it 
had expired, at or about the time, it would hâve been 
more reasonable and forcible if Jacob had used the expira- 
tion of the time as a cause for his désire to be sent away, 
instead of the birth of Joseph and the plea "When shall I 
provide for my own house also?" This is very strong proof 
that the second seven years of service had expired some 
time before Joseph was born, and Jacob lived in Haran . 
and probably v^orked for his father-in-law; but when Jo- 
seph was born, which was at the time that Jacob was 
ninety-one years old, as bas heretofore been shown, and as 
Jacob was sent away from home for the purpose that his 
brother Esau might forget what the former had done unto 
him, and then his mother was to send for him, as the 
Bible tells us: "Now, therefore, my son, obey my advice, 
and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother, to Haran; and 
tarry with him a few days until thy brother's fury turn 
away; until thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and 
he forget that which thou hast done to him; then I wiil 
send and fetch thee from thence." Gen., chap. 27. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 189 

At the time that Joseph was born she may bave sent 
him Word tbat it was safe for him to corne home, which 
we think is very reasonable to suppose; or Jacob being 
then ninety-one years of âge, and having been away from 
home between forty and fifty years, concluded that that 
was time enough for his brother to forget what he had 
done to him, and wanted to return home. (Look for un- 
noted quotations in Genesis, chap. zpth and 30th. 

We bave brought ail thèse biblical facts to the notice 
of the reader for the purpose that he may see that there 
is not the shadow of a spot that can be used as a support, 
or upon which a shadow of a support can be placed, that 
would support the Bishop's théories that Jacob was but 
twcnty years in Haran, and that ail his children, except 
Benjamin, were born during the second seven years that 
Jacob served Laban for Rachel. 

The fact that Rachel was considered a barren when 
Leah gave birth to or conceived with Reuben, is proof 
which cannot be successfully disputed that Leah did not 
conceive, or that Reuben was not born, before Rachel was 
considered a barren. 

And no one except inspired Bishop Colenso, or any 
one like him, will consider a woman a barren if she don't 
conceive before or at the expiration of three months from 
the time that she was married. The w^ord barren means 
one that cannot be fruitful or produce, in whom the pro- 
ducive nature is defective, and not one that does not pro- 
duce because some causes work against nature and stop 
nature from producing, which external causes can be 
removed. A field that does not produce because it is not 
drained, but can be drained, is not a barren fîeld. It may 
be reasonable to consider a wo4nan a barren if she bas 



190 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTSj 

been married from five to ten years and bas not conceived, 
but not before. And the fact that Reuben was big enough 
to be out in the wheat field when the wheat was harvested, 
and knew the use that women make of and value they 
set on mandrakes, which is a thing that never was in 
abuiidance, proves that Reuben must at the time hâve been 
a lad of at least twelve or fifteen years old, if not more. 

And above ail, the Bible plainly tells that Rachel did 
not give lier maid to Jacob until after Leah had her fourth 
son, Judah; and that Leah did not give her maid to Jacob 
until Rachel's maid had her two sons; and it also tells that 
Leah stopped bearing while the two maids were bearing; 
and it tells that Rachel did not conceive with Joseph until 
Leah had her fifth and sixth son and her daughter Dinah* 
Leah had seven children, and if she gave birth to a child 
each and every year of the seven years in question, the 
entire seven years would bave passed while she was bear- 
ing her children, and Joseph could not bave been boni 
until the end of the first year that Jacob served for the 
spotted sheep. And when were the children of the maids 
born ? 

We believe w^e hâve produced proof enough before 
the reader, from which lie can, with out trouble, conclude 
to which title Colenso is entitled : To the title of Bishop, 
Knave, or Ignorance. 

Suppose that a teacher tells a pupil to fînd out how 
much eight-ninths of ten times eleven is, and multiply the 
eight-ninths by twelve; the first thing the pupil would bave 
to do would be to find out the product of ten times eleven; 
and if the pupil would conclude that ten times eleven is ninety, 
or any other number than 1 10, can the pupil ever obtain 
the right answer to the problem? Certainly not. The 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 



multiplying of the wrong answer will only increase the 
error; and the larger the multiplier would be, the larger 
vvould the error be, and if he shoiild divide it, the quo- 
tient would contain a part of the error, in proportion to 
the divisor. 

The teacher would be blameworthy for giving the 
pupil an example in fractions when he, the latter, did not 
know the multiplication table; and they who gave to Co- 
lenso the bishopric are indeed blameworthy for giving that 
position to one who does not know the différence between 
serving a certain man in a certain place tvventy years, and 
living twenty years in the place wherein the one in ques- 
tion served the other one. 

Mathematic is a science by which ail other sciences are 
demonstrated, but there is no other science that can dem- 
onstrate or prove the science of mathematics; the only way 
we hâve to demonstrate mathematics is by itself. 

The Bible is the same; it proves everything and ap- 
proves of and agrées with every science, but there is 
nothing that can prove it ; the only way to demonstrate the Bi- 
ble is by itself, the same as the science of mathematic. A 
thing that is subject to proof, is subject to négative as well 
as to affirmative proof. Suppose that one would disbelieve 
that grass grows out of the ground; is there any thing by 
which we could demonstrate to him the truth that it does, 
if not by the fact itself ? The best and the only proof 
would be to show him the fact that strass does grow. So 
is the Bible. It is a truth. And that is what the Psalmist 
meant by saying: " Truth grows out of the earth, and 
" righteousness looks down from heaven. The Lord also 
" giveth the good; and our land yields her fruit." (Heb. 
version.) 



192 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

It can be seen that to compare the Bible to the pro- 
ducts of the earth is not a novelty. He who lias a proper 
mind, which is from heaven, can ascertain ^he truth of 
the Bible without any outside proof than the Bible itself, 
as he can prove everything that is or can be donc with the 
ten figures, by the figures themselves; or prove anything 
that grows out of the ground by the thing itself that is 
in question. 

If the reader will look in chapter 6th, we hâve there 
assumed that Jacob w^as fifty-three years old at the time he 
came to Haran, or to Laban, and that he v^as sixty years 
old at the time he got married; also, that it took him 
seventy years to raise his family of seventy. 

We hâve there claimed that Jacob w^as but about forty 
years o*ld at the time he came to Haran or to Laban. But 
the Bible tells us that Esau was married before Jacob left 
his father's house, and that his mother was displeased v^dth 
the w^ives of Esau, or " the daughters of Canaan." We 
therefore must allow some reasonable time to pass between 
the time that Esau got married and the time that Jacob 
vs^as sent away. We hâve in this chapter produced proof 
enough that between the âges of thirty and forty years 
was the matrimonial âge at the time in question. And 
knowing that Esau, who was of one âge with Jacob, mar- 
ried at forty; and we also know that Jacob was not sent 
away from home until after Esau was married, and that 
Rebecca was displeased with the wives of Esau, we will 
allow two years to hâve passed from Esau's marriage until 
the sending away of Jacob to Laban, and say that the 
former was forty-two years old when he came to his uncle, 
and got married after he served his uncle seven years, 
which made him forty-nine years old at the time he got 
married. The Bible don't tell us the âge of Jacob at the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I93 

timd either one of his children was born ; neither does the 
Bible tell us the âge of either one of his children at a 
certain time, except that it tells the âge of Joseph at the 
time he was brought before Pharaoh; hence the âge of Jacob 
when either one of his children, except Joseph, was born, 
cannot be ascertained. We know and it was heretofore shown 
that Jacob was ninety-one years old when Joseph was 
born, and allowing three years to hâve elapsed between 
the time of Jacob's marriage and the birth of his first son, 
which would make Reuben to hâve been born at the time 
Jacob was fifty-two years old; that leaves thirty-nine years 
between the birth of Reuben and that of Joseph, during 
which time the rest of the children of Jacob were born, 
instead of seven years as Colenso says; and it is impossible 
to ascertain the âge of Judah, or the âge of any one of 
the children of Jacob from the âge of Joseph. Judah may 
hâve been born three years after Reuben was, and in 
that case he would be nearly as old again as Joseph was 
at the time Jacob came into Egypt, at which time Joseph 
was thirty-nine years old, and Judah, being thirty-six years 
older, was or would hâve been seventy-five years old. 

And no one who lias read history and knows how 
history is written, and will not say or suppose a thing which 
will justify the world to charge him with being a fool, will 
ever say or suppose that Judah got married after Joseph 
was sold, because the marriage of Judah is related after the 
sale of Joseph. 

It is true that from the English version of the Bible 
one may suppose that the sale of Joseph took place before 
Judah got married, because it reads: "And it came to pass 
at the time that Judah," etc. It can be seen that that is 
mistranslated. The words "And it came to pass" are ^ 



Î94 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

grammatical contradiction to the words "At the time." 
The former alludes to time past, and the latter to présent 
time, and both phrases are predicates of the same time 
and allude to the same circumstance. The Hebrew text 
is this: "And it was ni that time," alludmg to the time 
that Jacob dwelt in the land of Canaan, whicli is the first 
verse of tlie first chapter, which gives the history of the 
hfe of Joseph, his dreams and everything else; and at the 
time, that is, the time that Jacob dwelt m Canaan, Judah 
got married; Joseph dreamed, he grew up and was sold. 

It may be said that we hâve assumed, when we were 
calculating the increase of the Israélites during their stay 
in Egypt, that Jacob was sixty years old at the time he was 
married, and that it took him seventy years to raise his 
family of seventy; and now we hâve assumed that he could 
hâve been at the utmost but forty-nine years old at the 
time in question, and that will make a great différence in 
the number of the Israélites at the time of the Exodus, 
because if we take forty-nine years, the âge of Jacob at 
the time of his marriage, from one hundred and thirty, 
w^nich was his âge at the time he came into Egypt, it 
leaves eighty-one, and that number will not go as many 
times in two hundred and fifteen, the time that the Israélites 
stayed in Egypt, as seventy will; and having referred 
the question of Jacob's âge at the time of his marriage to 
the question of the family of Judah, which is the subject 
of this chapter, we will therefore review the question 
hère. 

Say that Jacob married at the âge of forty-nine, 
and say that the first child was born to him a year 
after his marriage, which will make even eighty years 
as the time it took Jacob to raise his family of seventy. 



/ 

OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. I95 

Eighty in two hundred and fîfteen will go twice and 55- 
So or 11-16 remainder. Multiply seventy, three tunes by 
itself, that is, multiply the seventy tha-t migrated with 
Jacob three times by seventy, will make 24,010,000. But 
they did not stay in Egypt three times eighty years, 
which would make two hurtdred and forty; they were 
there but two hundred and fifteen years; hence we can 
only take 55-So or 11-16 of the" 24,010,000, the number 
that they could hâve been if they had stayed there three 
times eighty. Andii-j6of 24,010,0001s 16,506,875, which 
is the number that the Israélites could hâve been at the 
time of the Exodus if each father and mother had on 
an average 4^ children. (the last number is Colenso's 
ratio,) that is, if it took Jacob eighty years to raise his 
family of seventy. The English w^ord " harnessed," that 
is used m Exodus, chap. 13, verse 18, is translated from 
the Hebrew word " chamushim," which means fîve, or a 
fîfth part, and a fîfth part of 16,506,875 is 3,301,375, and 
that agrées with the number that the Israélites must hâve 
been at the time of the Exodus. If every one of the 
600,000 from twenty years upward was married, and ail 
had on an average 41^ children to each father, they would 
hâve been about 3,900,000; but it cannot be supposed that 
every one was married at twenty years of âge; hence the 
fîfth part of 16,506,875 is a reasonable number to suppose 
they were, 

Thus we see that a truth demonstrates itself, which- 
ever way it îs taken; but it must be taken with the 
" righteousnes-s of heaven " (the soûl), and not with the 
folly or malignity of Colenso and Ingersoll, or the hke of 
them. However, the truth of the subject in question is 
yet m its growth; it wiU develop itself and become ripe 
at the end of the next chapter. 



196 



CHAPTER XXI. 

THE NUMBER OF THE FIRST BORN, IN COMPARISON TO 

THE WHOLE NUMBER OF THE ISRAELITES 

AT THE TIME THEY WERE FIRST 

COUNTED IN THE DESERT. 

Could there hâve been, at the time, no more mothers 
in Israël than the number of the first born? Was there a 
necessity for every mother m Israël, at the time in ques- 
tion, to hâve as many children on an average as the quo- 
tient would be if 603,550, the whole number of the 
Israélites, be divided by 22,273, vs^hich w^as the number of 
the first born, the quotient of which is between 27 and 28, 
and more, as it will hereinafter appear, that each mother 
in Israël vs^as compelled to hâve, if the maie population 
from twenty years and upward w^ere 603,550, as the RT. 
REVo BISHOP COLENSO and as the man of circum- 
stances — the Orator! The Law^yer! The Politician! The 
Statesman! The Libéral man! The Benevolent man! 
The écho of senseless thoughts of other men! The man 
vs^hose empty but glossy words draw together unthinking 
crowds of men and w^omen, who congregate to hear and 
applaud him whose w^ords poisons their hearts and minds, 
by w^hich means he acquired the famé of his name and by 
which he makes his money! The no man, for man con- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. I97 

sists of soul and body, and the former he says he bas not 
got! Tbe gentleman of tbe fine bodily appearance and 
abundance ot flesh! The man who says that when bis 
body returns to its dust the whole of him, the man, will 
be lost! The man whom we beheve to be honest and 
sincère, but whose mental theological stomach bas entirely 
lost its power of digestion because it was, in its youth, 
overloaded with indigestive theological tood, which it now 
throws ont in an undigested state, and cannot digest the 
religions nourishment or theological food it inhales now! 
In short, the man Ingersoll — say it is? 

The Bible is to religion what the books of a business 
are to the business; everything that appertains to the busi- 
ness is to be and must be found in the books in which the 
transactions of the business are recorded. And a Bishop 
is supposed to know and understand every transaction that 
takes or took place in bis business, the same as a book- 
keeper does and bas to know and understand the books 
in which the transactions and accounts of the business are 
kept. 

The conclusions of a Bishop, which he draws from 
the several items that are recorded in the books of bis 
business (the Bible), are the balance-sheets which every 
book-keeper bas to make out of the items which are 
recorded in the books that contain the record of tbe trans- 
actions of said business. 

He who examines, criticises, approves or disapproves, 
coïncides or confutes the conclusions of the Bishop, is the 
expert accountant, to whom the balance-sheet of the book- 
keeper of the business in question is often submitted. 

What would, could, and should any reasonable business 



î9^ 

man, or any man, nay, even any bootblack or newsboy 
who bas to pay bis own board and other expenses out of 
bis earnings, think of a book-keeper wbo kept an account 
of the cash that came into the business, but kept no ac- 
count of tbe cash that went out of the business, such as 
the necessary and reguhir expenses and circumstantial 
losses, which were equal to four-fifths of tiie profits of the 
business? The only account that he kept was the quantity 
and cost price of the goods sold and the profits it brought, 
which were equal to twenty-five per cent, of the first cost 
of the goods. And bis balance sheet for the first month 
would (according to the items of the book) be something 
like this : 

January Ist, stock on h and $2,000 

31, " •' $1,000 

Sales 1,000 

$2,000 

Cash price of goods sold during January $1,000 

25 per cent, profit on goods sold 350 

$1,250 
Showing a profit of $250. 

Total amountof cash as per balance-sheet, $i,550. 

But in counting the cash he only found $1,050, which 
could be no other wise, because four-fifths of $250 profits 
(which is $200) went away for expenses. 

But the book-keeper, instead of making that resuit 
the measure or weight of bis ability and fitness as a book- 
keeper, would report to the proprietor of the business that 
there are some dishonest clerks in the business; and to 
prove what he said would produce bis balance-sheet, which 
would show a loss of $200, which must bave been taken 
out by some unknown hands from his cash-drawer (brain). 
We ask, what could even a bootblack or a newsboy think 
of such a book-keeper? . 



OR KËY TO SCRÎPTURË. I99 

And what coiild he think, or to what conclusion could 
he corne, of an expert accountant who says he lias thor- 
oughly examined the books as well as the balance-sheet, 
and fînds no other way to account for the loss of the $300 
than that there is dishonesty among the clerks of the 
business? To whatever conclusion any one could, would, 
or should corne about the fitness and ability of the book- 
keeper as a book-keeper, and of the expert as an expert 
accountant, may, can, and must be the conclusion of every 
one of Colenso as a Bishop, and of IngersoU as a practical 
critic of biblical subjects! 

The book which the Bishop bas produced and deliv- 
ered to the religions community of the world, who are in 
fact the party and the only party that bas an interest in 
the religions business, of which a Bishop is the head book- 
keeper, is the balance-sheet of the business in question ; and 
in that balance-sheet the Bishop reports a great deficiency 
in the sum total, which he ascribes to the dishonesty of 
some of those that were employed in the business. Inger- 
soU says he is an expert accountant, and that he had thor- 
oughly examined the books of the business (the Bible), and 
corroborâtes the balance-sheet of the Bishop, and also says 
that dishonesty is the only cause which accounts for the 
biblical deficiency shown by the balance-sheet produced by 
the Bishop. And we, who claim to be no more than 
bootblacks and newsboys, are compelled by the circum- 
stances and facts of the subject in question to say that 
Colenso is less fitted to occupy the position of Bishop, and 
IngersoU the position of biblical critic, than a bootblack or 
newsboy is. 

And we will now produce the facts and figures of the 
subject in question to the reader, who is one of the pro- 



2O0 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

prietors of the business, that he may judge for himself. 
And we will be exceedingly thankful to the friends 
and followers of Bishop Colenso and IngersoU if they 
will take the trouble to examine our report or balance- 
sheet of the business and books in question, and point out 
to us any error that they may lînd in our report. We 
would ask the Bishop and Col. R. G. IngersoU to do the 
same, but we are strongly inclined to think that they will 
not want to condescend from their empty dignity to cor- 
respond and dispute with a bootblack or newsboy, which 
position we justly ascribe to ourselves, because, if we should 
place ourselves or be placed by others in juxtaposition to 
any one of those who hâve made the record of the Bible, 
our position would indeed be far lower than the position 
of the ordinary bootblack compared to the position of 
even Bishop Colenso. And we propose that the reader 
shall measure our position with the position of the last 
named, or with any one or ail of his congenial crew. 

The reader is to décide the case between those who 
hâve entered the accounts in the Bible and those who 
accuse them of dishonesty. And we are the attorney for 
the défendants, and the Bible itself is the witness for the 
défendants. And although we could clear the défendants 
by simply showing the entries of the expenses and losses 
that were made by the défendants, which are ail found in 
the Bible, and the apparent deficiency is caused by the 
stupidity of the présent head book-keeper, Colenso, and 
expert accountant IngersoU, by not subtracting it from the 
profits or sum total; nevertheless we will first examine 
Bishop Colenso and see if we cannot benefit our client by 
cross-questioning him, which it is the right and duty of 
every lawyer to do, and which every lawyer does for the 
benefit of his client and for the purpose of finding out 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 20I 

thè character of the witness, which may, as it otten does, 
lead to resnlts that are of great benefit to the community. 

A witness can and often does testify to an untruth of 
which he is not aware, such as making a mistake of a 
date or circumstance. But when it is proven by the évi- 
dence of the witness himself that he testified to a thing of 
which he could not make a mistake, such as telhng tiiat 
he was in New York, or in any other far away place, 
and his évidence shows that he never was there, then his 
own évidence shows that he has wilfully misrepresented 
the case; and more especially when it appears from his 
évidence or from the évidence in the case that he, the wit- 
ness, has derived a benefit or a considération for misrepre- 
senting the truth of the case, then the witness is not only 
condemned by the community and debarred by law from 
giving évidence again, but may be and very often is pun- 
ished by law for perjury. 

We, therefore, will cross-question Colenso and see if 
we cannot benefit by it our clients and the community, so 
that the latter may condemn him and impeach him, that he 
may never again ofFer himself as a witness in a theological 
case. 

But the reader may accuse us of changing our position. 
We bave introduced ourselves to the reader as an inde- 
pendent or unsectarian biblical critic; and we hâve in the 
présent case already assumed the positions of practical book- 
keeper, bootblack, and now that of a lawyer. Hence we 
think it is due to the reader and proper for us to define 
and explain our position before we proceed further, or be- 
fore we call Colenso on the witness stand. 

Every party is, at the trial of its case, bound by 



^02 A CÔLLËCTIONT OF THÔÛGlÎTS, 

its own pleadings. The préface of a book is the pleâd- 
ing of its author; in it the author sets forth his plea 
and indicates his jnodtcs operandî. Onr préface shows that 
the Bible is our plea, and that Solomon is our method. 
And he says: "A treble twisted thread is not easily 
torn;" hence we hâve a right to assume a trebled posi- 
tion. And Solomon in Proverbs, chap. 36, v. 4, says: 

" Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou 
" also be like imto him." (Verse 5.) 

" Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be 
" wise in his own conceit." 

What Solomon meant by the two apparently incon- 
sistent and contradictory verses is this: If a foolish ques- 
tion is asked of you, and you see and believe that the 
questioner is indeed sincère and honest, and only asks be- 
cause he desires to be informed, then says Solomon : Answer 
him not according to his folly, for you will be consid- 
ered as big a fool as he is. It will be said or supposed 
that you don't know how to answer any more than he, 
to ask, hence you will be like him, a fool, Therefore 
give him a proper answer. But when you hâve reason to 
believe that the question is not asked with sincerity and 
for the purpose of being informed, but you hâve reason to 
believe that it w^as asked because the questioner considers 
himself wise in his own conceit, then answer him "accord- 
ing to his folly," because the more you will endeavor to 
give him a proper answer, the more wise will the ques- 
tioner consider himself; because he will naturally suppose 
that he must be a wise man if he succeeded in making 
you believe that he asked the question in earnest; and that 
you who gave him such a wise answer, consequently you 



OR ÎCEY TO SCRIPTÎJRË. 2Ô^ 

must be a vvise man, y et you did not know that he was 
only asking the question for the purpose of finding out 
whether you were wise enough to know that he asked the 
question from a motive of folly. Hence, before a question is 
to be answered, the motive of the questioner must be as- 
certained. Suppose one man asked another: How can 
sait be preserved from becoming v^ormy and rotten? To 
which the other repHed: The only way to préserve sait 
from being decayed is, to préserve it in the after-birth of 
an animal that is a barren and its mother was a barren. 
That would be answering a fool according to his folly. 
Had he told him that sait préserves itself, the questioner 
would hâve considered himself wise in his own conceit. 
Thus the reader sees that ail the positions which we hâve 
assumed are in accordance with the Bible, and according 
to the Bible we are compelled to answer Colenso accord- 
ing to his folly, which is, as the answer to the question of 
the sait is given; and to the honest seeker for truth we 
will give the wise and true answer of the Bible, which 
will be the closing part of this chapter and subject. 

Our answer to the foolish question of the Bishop: 
How could the Israélites bave been over 600,000 men from 
twenty years upward, when according to his conjecture 
they could bave been no more than about 5,000 in ail, in- 
cluding men, women and children; believing and seeing 
that that question was not asked from a cause of ignorance 
or for the sake of gaining information on the subject, we 
bave therefore answered him that question according to 
his folly by showing him that even if it took Tacob seventy 
years to raise his family of seventy, while the Bishop says 
it took him but twenty, the Israélites could hâve reached 
at the time of the Exodus to the incredible and unnatural 
numbcr of 144,060,000, instead, as his ignorant or hypo- 



204 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

critical conjecture made him say that they could hâve been 
but about 5,000 men, women and children. And that is 
the mathematical resuit if it took Jacob, as \ve, for the 
purpose of then and there answering to the reader the folly 
of the Bishop and separating it from bibHcal truth, bave 
said that it took him seventy years to raise his family. 
And for the purpose of exposing the folly or ignorance of 
the Bishop, we vvill now see what the resuit would be ifit 
took Jacob but twenty years to raise his family of seventy, 
as the Bishop say s and insists. In tw^enty years from the 
time Jacob came into Egypt each one of the seventy could, 
at the rate of 41^ to each father and mother, also raise a 
family of seventy, which would be seventy times seventy, 
which equals 4,900. And in forty years after Jacob came 
into that country, or in the second twenty years, each one 
of the 4,900 could at tiie same rate also raise a family of 
seventy, which equals seventy times 4,900 and makes 343,- 
000. And in sixty years from the time in question each 
one of the last number could at the same ratio also raise a 
family of seventy, which equals 24,010,000. And in the 
fourth twenty years each one of the last number could do 
the same as his predecessor did, raise a family of seventy 
in twenty years, which would hâve been seventy times 
24,010,000, and that equals to 1,680,700,000. And in the 
fifth twenty years each one of the last number could, at 
the same ratio, do the same thing, which would equal sev- 
enty times the last number, and that equals to the unnatural 
and unhistorical and unreasonable — but complies with the 
foolish or hypocritical conjecture of Colenso, — to the num- 
ber of 117,649,000,000 in the short time of but one hun- 
dred yeai's from and after the time that Jacob came with 
his family of seventy into Egypt! And if the reader 
wishes to measure or w^eigh the folly of Bishop Colenso, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 205 

by ascertaining- how many the Israélites could hâve been, 
at the same ratio of increase, at the end of the 315 years 
which the Enghsh prelate says they (the Israélites) were in 
Egypt, (which is five years more than they actually were 
there,) let him multiply the last number by seveiity as 
many times as twenty goes into one hundred and lifteen, 
and that will give him an insight to the bottomless folly, 
ignorance, knavery or hypocrisy of the Rev. Bishop Co- 
lenso and of bis disciple Ingersoll. We bave there an- 
swered that question to the Bishop according to his folly. 

And the question raised by the Bishop's conjectured 
impossibility for Hetzron and Hamul to hâve been born 
before the time that Jacob came into Egypt, we answered 
that to the Bishop also according to his folly, by bringmg 
out scores of circumstances that are recorded in the Bible, 
each and every one of which shows that nothing but folly 
or ignorance could or would suppose that Jacob married 
when he was eighty-four years old. And that was an 
answer according to the folly of the questioner, because that 
part of the answer exposed his folly. And we bave 
answered the same question to the seeker for truth, that it 
took Jacob no less than eighty years to raise his family of 
seventy; and as far as the Bishop and Ingersoll and their 
congenial crew are concerned, we would answer them ac- 
cording to their folly only, so that they shall not consider 
themselves wise in their own conceit. But for the sake of 
the honest seeker for truth we will hère dispense with the 
folly of the Bishop, and ail that we can do with it is to 
dispense with it, because we can come to no end of it, for 
there is no end to folly; hence we dispense with it, and 
betake ourselves to the subject in question, and apply our 
answer to the seeker for truth. 

But we find it to be a duty which we owe to the 



206 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

Bible and the friends of it, as well as to ourselves, to say 
to the reader that whatever question he may find in our 
answer to the Bishop, which we give for the purpose of 
exposing his folly to the pubhc and convincing him (the 
Bishop) of the same, the reader should not lay the ques- 
tion on the Bible nor on us, but should lay the same to 
the incompetency of Colenso, the English Bishop at Natal. 
The Bible is no more responsible for what the Bishop 
makes it say than the figures an incompétent mathemati- 
cian uses are responsible for the resuit which the ignorant 
accountant makes the figures he uses bring out. And we 
are making use of the Bîshop's figures for no other pur- 
pose than to convince him of his folly and ignorance, 
which is the same as we are doing with our pupils in 
school. Consequently, we are not to be blamed for the 
stupidity of the Bishop. 

We will now direct our attention to the question, and 
answer it in a reasonable and mathematical way, for which 
we hold ourselves responsible, and will answer each and 
every question the reader may ask us about it. 

Ail that we hâve heretofore said about the number of 
the Israélites at the time of the Exodus, or at the time 
they were first numbered in the désert by Moses and 
Aaron, was our answer to Colenso according to his folly. 
The assumption that the 603,550 that the Bible says 
were over twenty years, were ail married, is not ouïs, 
neither is that idea based upon anything that is or can 
be found in the Bible. So is the conclusion that the 
Israélites must hâve been, at the time of the Exodus, 
the incredible number of 144,000,000, including the four- 
fifths that died in Egypt before they left; and that must 
hâve been the number, according to Colenso, if it took 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 207 

Jacob seventy years to raise his family of seventy, as we, 
for the purpose heretofore stated, said it did; and the 
greatly more unreasonable number if it took Jacob but 
twenty years to raise his family in question. AU of 
which the reader must lay on Colenso and his echoes, 
not on the Bible nor on us. 

A mother may hâve twenty or more children, but 
no mother can hâve more thau one first-born, and if that 
first-born dies its mother may bave tw^ent}'- children after 
her first-born died, but she can never hâve another first- 
born. Suppose that ten newly-married couples hâve 
settled in a settlement by themselves; a child was born 
to each family at the end of tw^o years after they w^ere 
married, and each family continued to bring forth a child 
every two years; the increase of the ten familles would 
be equal to five children every year. In twenty years 
from the time of their marriage and settlement the ten 
familles would give birth to one hundred children, among 
whom would be ten first-born. But their decrease, which 
was equal to four-fifths of the increase for the first 
and second twenty years after they had entered that 
settlement, was from the children that were born and before 
they reached the âge of twenty years; which left but 
one-fifth that reached the âge of twenty and upwards. 
One-fifth of one hundred is twenty. And among t4ie 
four-fifths that died was also four-fifths of the first-born, 
hence there were but two first-born alive; and the popu- 
lation of the settlement in the twenty-first year after the 
settlement was made by the ten familles was forty in ail. 
Ten fathers, ten mothers, twenty children, and among 
the latter were two first-born, which represented ten 
mothers and a population of forty. But one first-born to 
five mothers and to twenty not first-born! Hence we 



2o8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

perceive that there can be five and more than five mothers 
to one first-born. 

That is the resuit that would follow at the end of 
the first twenty years from the time of the settlement, at 
which time the first settlers were but forty years old; 
and it is natural for a woman to bear children until she is 
fifty years old, and even longer. Hence, during the second 
twenty years after the settlement the ten female setllers 
would, during the first ten years of the second twenty 
years, produce five children each, or fifty childrent among 
the ten; and the second génération would, during the sec- 
ond twenty years, produce one hundred children, the same 
as the first settlers did during the first twenty years after 
the settlement. That would hâve made 150 children that 
were born in the settlement during the second twenty 
years, of whom four-fifths died, and that equals 120; and 
that would leave but thirty children who survived from 
those that were born during the second twenty years, and 
among whom were but two first-born; that is, one-fifth of 
the ten first-born of the ten mothers of the second généra- 
tion. That would make but four first-born to twenty 
mothers. And the population of the settlement would be 
twenty fathers, twenty mothers, and fifty children, or a 
total population of ninety; among whom would be but 
four first-born, or about one first-born to about twenty-two 
or more not first-born. And if the reader will take the 
trouble to carry ont the same ^^l'ocess until the time when 
the first settlers became seventy years old, he will see that 
there is a very reasonable and natural possibility to be 
one first-born among thirty and even more non-first-born. 
And he will perceive that the further, in point of time, he 
will extend his calculation, the greater will become the 
proportion of the non-first-born to one first-born. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 209 

It has been shown in the previous chapter that but 
one-fifth of the increase of the IsraeHtes in Egypt came out 
of that country. Hence the 22,273 maie fîrst-born were 
but one-fifth of the maie first-born; and to find out the 
number of the mothers in Israël by the number of the 
first-born, we must add an equal number of first-born 
females to the given number of first-born maies, which 
would make 44,546. The last number would hâve been 
the vvhole number of living first-born, including maies and 
females. And that would hâve been one-fifth of ail the 
first-born, because four-fifths died. Multiply the 44,546, the 
first-born that v^ere living, by five, v^^ould make 222,730 as 
the number of ail the first-born, including both the dead 
and the living. And that 222,730 v^ould hâve been the 
number of mothers at the time and among the people in 
question. Which shovs^s that but a fraction more than 
one-third of those that were numbered, or were above 
twenty years, were married. 



2IO A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXII. 

THE TRUE AND PROPER BIBLICAL ANSWERS TO THE 

QUESTIONS IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS; OR, 

" ANSWER NOT A POOL ACCORDING 



We have heretofore, on a former occasion, said that 
" Science proves the truthfulness of the Bible, and that 
" it proves the ignorance of those who say that science 
" disproves the Bible." To prove what we have then 
said, and what we say now, we will for a short time 
change the name of Bible into the name of Mathematic, 
and the name of Israël into the name of sheep, which 
will relieve the reader from the tiresomeness that we 
anticipate he may feel from reading the same names too 
often, and relieve ourselves from the unavoidable, but nev- 
ertheless well-founded, charge of tautology; and see if 
the science of mathematics will not give the same answer 
to the questions before us that the Bible does or will 
give. We will therefore reduce the whole subject to the 
simple mathematical problem which follows: 

A and B had a flock of sheep in partnership. One- 
twentieth part of the whole flock, or one sheep in every 
twenty was white, and the other nineteen were black* 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 311 

They hâve at a certain time dissolved their copartnership, 
and divided the* sheep between them. A took one-half of 
the sheep and B the other; but B took in his half ail the 
white sheep that were in the flock, that is, he had one 
white sheep in every ten, and A took his half in black 
sheep. A butcher bought ail the sheep that A had, and 
four-fifths of ail the sheep that B had, who kept one-fifth 
of his sheep, and in the one-fifth of the sheep he kept he 
retained ail the white sheep which he had, and which for- 
merly belonged to A and B; so that the one-fifth which B 
kept consisted of as many white sheep as there were black, 
or the white and black were equal in number. At last B 
sold one-half of the sheep that he had left, but agreed 
with the purchaser that he should take the black and leave 
to B the white. And it was counted and ascertained that 
the sheep which B sold the second time, and which took 
ail the black sheep that B had, were 603,550. The ques- 
tion is: How many white sheep did B hâve left? How 
many did he hâve when he dissolved with A, and before 
he sold the four-fifths of his half ? 

Solution: We will suppose that the whole flock be- 
fore it w^as divided consisted of 400 sheep, of which B 
took his half, 200, or 180 black and 20 white, which makes 
one white sheep in every ten, of which he (B) sold four- 
fifths to the same butcher that bought A's half of the flock; 
four-fifths of 200 is 160; hence he sold 160 black sheep, 
for he sold none of the white; take 160 from iSo leaves 
20, and thèse twenty were black; consequently B must hâve 
had 40 sheep, 20 white ones and 3o black ; the last, the black, 
as well as the former, the white, were each equal to one- 
tenth of B's half, or the half he had before he sold the 
four-fifths; and the one-tenth of the black sheep vv^hich he 
subsequently sold, and which left him no black sheep at 



212 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ail, eqiialed 603,550; then the white sheep which he had 
left must also hâve been 603,550, for they *were also one- 
tenth of the same one-half. And if 603,550 is one-tenth of 
a number, the whole number niust hâve been ten times 
603,550, which equals 6,035,550. 

^et us now" siibstitute Egypt for A, and those that were 
brought out of Egypt for B, and Israël for the sheep, and 
the biblical problem in place of the mathematical one, 
w^hich is ail one and the snme, and see whether the resuit 
will not be the same. 

In doing a certain work, the time that it will take 
to do the work is governed by the number of men that 
are employed to do the work. For example: If it will 
take one man ten days to do a certain work, ten men 
can do the work in one day; and five men, which is 
one-half of ten, will do the v^^ork in two days. Time 
is therefore coïncident to, or with, the number of men in 
doing a certain work. 

If it will take four hnndred men four hundred days 
to do a certain work, and if that number of men hâve 
worked at it one-half of the time, but one-half of the work 
is considered donc, and the whole number of men hâve 
to w^ork the other half of the time. 

The work which the Israélites had to do in Egypt 
had to take them 400 years, or four centuries, and four 
générations were to w^ork at it; and each génération 
was to consist of four spécial générations, namely, father, 
son, grandson and great-grandson, as the génération that 
came to Egypt and began the work did consist of Jacob, 
his sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 21 3 

For the sake of convenience, we will call those who 
came to Egypt with Jacob a common génération, and 
each one of the four that helped to make up that généra- 
tion we will call a spécial génération, and do the same 
with the générations who succeeded them. And we will 
for convenience sake say that each common génération 
consisted, on an average, of four hundred men, and each 
spécial génération consisted of one hundred men, or one- 
fourth part of the common. And each génération had, 
during the hundred years that it worked, (each généra- 
tion had to work one hundred years, for there were 
only to be four générations in the four hundred years 
that they were to be in Egypt,) produced its substitute 
who was to take its place and work during the succeed- 
ing hundred years. In 200 years from the time that 
Jacob came into that country, one-half of the time, and 
two générations had passed. The third génération had 
begun its work and had worked ten years, which made 
up the 210 years that they were in Egypt, and which we 
would prove if we did not believe it is a well-known 
fact that needs no proof. During thèse 210 years 210- 
400 parts of the work was done. The last two généra- 
tions are represented by the sheep of A and B. During 
the first ten years of the third 100 years, or century, 
the third génération had produced one-tenth part of the 
fourth génération, who were to do the work during the 
fourth 100 years, and were to be to the fourth généra- 
tion what Jacob was to the fîrst génération. And they 
are represented by the white sheep, which were one in 
twenty, because ten is 1-20 of 200. But at that time A 
and B had dissolved and the sheep were divided. A, or 
Egypt, took bis one-half of the 200 and sold them to 
the butcher, Death. Half of 200 is loa: and B sold 



214 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

four-fifths of his half or loo, which equals 80-100, to 
the same butcher at the sa me time and in the same place 
that A solcl his. Thiis the butcher, Death, took ofF 
eighteen ont of every twenty sheep that A and B had, 
or 180 out of the 200 that they had; and B kept twenty 
sheep, which is one-fîfth of his 100, and one-tenth part 
of the 200 that belonged to him and A; and in his 
twenty sheep he had ten white and the same number of 
black sheep which he, B, brought away from A, or 
Egypt. 

He, B, subsequently and in another place (in the 
Désert) sold half of his sheep that he then had, which half 
was equal to one-tenth of his half that he had in the 
flock owned by him and A, and one-twentieth of the 
whole flock, and ascertained that the number of his black 
sheep, (for he only sold the black and kept the white for 
himself,) or the half of the sheep that he had in the 
Désert, were 603,550, and that was the number of 
the black sheep; then he must hâve haa an equal number 
of white sheep. Hence, the whole number of sheep 
that B had in the Désert, at the time he counted his 
black sheep which were sold, must bave been twice 
603,550, which makes 1.207,100. Consequently, the whole 
number of the maie population of the Israélites, including 
those that were counted, or that were over twenty years 
old, and who are represented by the black sheep, because 
they had to die before they reached the promised land, 
for they were the one-tenth part of the third common 
génération, that consisted of nine black sheep that had 
to die in Egypt, eight-tenths of which did die there, which 
are represented by the four-fîfths of the sheep that B sold 
to the same butcher that A sold his one-half to. And the 
reason why they had to die before they reached the prom- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 215 

ised land is becaiise the eight-tenths or four-fîfths that died 
in Egypt and the one-tenth that died in the désert were 
of the second and third common générations, and the land 
was not to be delivered to any one before the fourth com- 
mon génération, as specified in the covenant: " And the 
fourth génération shall return hither." 

The second and third générations, or the nine-tenths 
of the wliole that were at or before the Exodus, had no 
more lawful or équitable right or title to the land of Ca- 
naan than the children and grand-children of C or any one 
else would hâve if C made a will and placed his property 
in the hands of trustées, to be delivered to his great-grand- 
children when they became of âge, at or before the expira- 
tion of, say forty years. The children and grand-children 
of C could certainly hâve no right v^hatever to the prop- 
erty in the hands of the trustées, and either one and every 
one of the s^reat-grand-children could, when he became of 
âge, claim his share of the property from the trustées, irre- 
spective of the forty years time specified in the will. He 
could claim his share by the right of his own âge. And 
at the expiration of the forty years specified in the will 
the minors could also claim and establish their claims by 
the expiration of the time of forty years that was specified 
in the will. 

If a minor would présent such a case in one of our 
probate courts, the judge of that court would, as it is his 
duty to, appoint a lawful guardian for the lawful claimant 
of the property. And that is the very thing that God 
hath done. 

He had appointed guardians over the heirs who were 
lawful heirs but could not get possession of the land be- 
cause they were not of âge and the specified time had not 



2l6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

expired. Nine-tenths of those who were in Egypt at the 
time in question would hâve liad to die in Egypt, the 
same as the générations that preceded them, and if the 
work and purpose for which they were broiight and kept 
in Egypt had not been accomphshed before the expiration 
of the four hundred years, which was to make the Egyp- 
tians know God, they would hâve had to stay to the end 
of the four hundred years, or would hâve died there within 
that time. But God helped them to finish the work and ac- 
complish the purpose at the end of two hundred and ten 
years. As the Bible tells us: " I will harden the heart 
" of Pharaoh that he shall not send you, so that I may 
" place my signs and wonders within him, and he (or the 
" Egyptians) will know that I am God." (See Exodus, 
from 2d to 5th chapter.) Which the Egyptians did at the 
Red Sea, saw that God was fighting them for the Israél- 
ites. 

Hence the object for which the time was specified 
in the contract, or will, which God had made with Abra- 
ham in regard to bis posterity was accomplished, and the 
time itself had no bearing on the case, but the lawful heirs 
were not of âge. Consequently God appointed a guardian 
for each heir until he should become of âge. He, God, 
caused but four-fifths or eight-tenths of the nine-tenths to 
die in Egypt, and the other one tenth, that is represented 
by the black sheep which B sold in the désert, to be the 
guardians over one-tenth of the white sheep, or the lawful 
but minor heirs, those that were under twenty years of 
âge, and were, when they came of âge, 601,730 in num- 
ber, besides the 24,000 who died because they served the 
god of the Moabites, and the indefinite number of them 
that died by the fiery serpents. And the difTerence between 
their number and the number of their guardians, which 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2 1^ 

would be if they had ail been living at the time they who 
lived were numbered, is the natural increase duriiig the 
thirty-eight or thirty-nine years that had passed between 
the numbering of the guardians, who were numbered in 
the second year after they left Egypt, and the numbering 
of the heirs, who were numbered at the close of the forty 
years that they were in the désert. And this answers one 
of Bîshop Colenso's questions, namely : The inipossibilty 
of the Israélites to be the same number the second time 
they were counted, that they were the first time; that they 
had neither increased nor decreased during the forty years 
they were in the désert. And it explains fully the cause 
why four-fifths had died and but one-fifth of them were 
left. Tlie one-fifth consisted of one-tenth of the lawful 
heirs and one-tenth of their appointed guardians. 

We will now return to the subject that we left ofF, 
namely: What the whole number of the Israélites was at 
the time of the Exodus. 

If the white sheep, or the heirs, who were counted 
when they became of âge, or about thirty-eight years after 
the black sheep, or the guardians, were counted, and if 
each or either of them was 6,035,500, which is ten times 
603,550; add to the 6,035,500 the same number of females, 
makes 13,071,000; add to this number the Lévites, who 
were 22,300 maies, (count each family by itself and you 
will fînd that number; the 300 were first-born and the 
families of Moses and Aaron into the to*^al who were to 
be exchanged for the first-born of Israël,) and add to them 
an equal number of females, makes 44,600; add the last 
number of the Lévites to the 12,071,000 Israélites makes 
12,115,600. That is the number they must hâve been be- 
fore they came out of Egypt. And one-fifth of 12,115,600 



2lS A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

equals 2,423,120. And that must hâve been the number 
that came out of Egypt. 

But our figures as to the number of the Israélites be- 
fore the Exodus, and the number of those who came out of 
there, do not agrée and cannot agrée with the figures we 
used and the conclusions we reaohed about the same ques- 
tions in the former part of our work. The reader who bas 
followed us up to this part of our " Collection of Thoughts" 
knows that we bave there used some of Colenso's figures, 
which do not belong- to the fiofures of the Bible. We can 
never come to a right conclusion when we mix falsehood 
with truth and that was the method by which we came to 
the conclusion. But we bave now drowned ail the Co- 
lensonian and Ingersollonian fio^ures and théories in the 
dark abyss of folly. We will now endeavor to demonstrate 
our last conclusions by biblical figures and items. And we 
are certain that if our figures and conclusions are ,right 
we will succeed; and it will plainly appear if we are in 
error, 

Among the seventy who came with Jacob into Egypt 
were fourteen fathers: Jacob, his twelve sons, and one of 
his grandsons. Beriah the son of Asher had two sons. 
Gen. 46:17. 

Take away the fourteen fathers from the whole num- 
ber of seventy, leaves fifty-six children. Divide the fifty- 
six, the number of the children, by fourteen, the number 
of the fathers, the quotient will be four — that is, four 
children to each father. 

It will be remembered that we came to our conclu- 
sions by taking one-tenth of ail that were in Eg}pt 
shortlv before the Exodus, and bave taken the fourth 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 219 

génération, or those who came to the land of Canaan, 
as one-tenth of the whole that were in Egypt before they 
left. 

Let us now take the ratio of the increase of the sev- 
enty who came to Egypt and multiply it ten times by itself, 
and see how far we will be from, or how near we will be 
to oiir conckision. The ratio of the increase of the gén- 
ération that came with Jacob into Egypt was four, as 
has heretofore been shown; 1,048,576 is the product of 
four when multiphed ten times by itself. Those that went 
out of Egypt were divided into thirteen tribes, which 
equals to the thirteen fathers, exclusive of Jacob ; hence we 
must multiply the product of ten times four by itself, 
which is 1,048,576, by thirteen, because the last number 
represents but one father out of the thirteen in question 
and the product of thirteen times 1,048,576 is 13,631,488; 
and that is the number of both maies and females that 
were in Egypt shortly before the Exodus, of whom one- 
fîfth came out of that country. 

And one fifth of the last number is 2,726,297; and the 
conclusion to which we came by taking the 603,550, the 
number of the Israélites at the time they were first counted 
in the désert, as a ratio of one-tenth of the whole number 
that were in Egypt at or shortly before the time of the 
Exodus, is 2,423,120, which is but 308,177 less than the 
conclusion we reach in the whole number at the time of 
the Exodjs; and our deficiency in the number or the dif- 
férence that can be made in the one-tenth that were 
counted in the désert, would be but 30,317, which is one- 
tenth part of 303,177. And the cause of defîciency is very 
obvions, and explains itself. It is this: In multiplying the 
ratio four by itself, or by any other figure that there is 



220 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



that the multiplicand represents, we say, 4 ûmes 4 are 
16. That is very right and proper in principle. But when 
we say a father has four children, which is a reasonable 
and natural number, it is therefore simply reasonable and 
natural to say that each one of his children may or can 
also hâve four children. But it is not sure, for one of the 
four may die, or be unproductive; hence it will not be 4 
times 4; it will only be 4 times 3, which is but 12. And 
in multiplying four ten times by itself, 4 times 4 are 16 
when it is but 12, because one is dead, it is not 4 times 
16, which is 64; it is 4 times 12^ which is but 48; and 
that imperceptible deficiency grows in proportion to the 
multiplier and to the number of times it is multiplied. 
But if we are told that two is one-tenth part of the grand- 
children that a man has, and ail his grand-children are the 
children of his four sons, we can say with certainty that 
each one of his sons has on an average fîve children. 
Consequently we can and do say with certainty that the 
conclusion which we hâve brought out from the number 
of the one-tenth part of the Israélites that were first counted 
after they left Egypt, is the right and true number that 
they were at or shortly before the Exodus; and we are 
sure and certain that ail vain titled Bishops or Colensos 
and the empty but glossy words of the Ingersolls are not 
able to point out any error in our figures, calculations and 
conclusions. 

Our faith is not in ourselves, but in the Bible. It is 
the Book which God hath created to guide man on earth 
and lead him to eternity! The only faith which we hâve 
in ourselves is, that we hâve no other motive while en- 
gaged in our work than to seek and find the truth, what- 
ever the truth may be, or wherever the truth will lead 
us to. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 221 



We believe that our " Key to Scripture " bas opened 
a door that bas let out trutb enougb to confuse and baffle 
tbe " Tbougbts " of not only Bisbop Colenso and Inger- 
soll, but tbe tbougbts of ail tbe Colensos and Ingersolls 
in wbicb ail tbe streams of ignorance empty tbemselves. 

We believe tbat tbe Psalmist batb plainly and fully 
described tbe position and condition of Colenso and tbe 
like of bim wben be said: 

" He batb prepared for bim tbe instruments of deatb; 
t' he ordained bis arrows against tbe persecutors. Bebold, 
" he travailetb witb iniquity, and batb conceived miscbief, 
" and brought fortb talsehood. He made a pit and digged 
" it, and is fallen into tbe ditch wbicb be made. His mis- 
" chief bas returned upon bis own bead and his violent 
*' dealing came down upon his ow^n pâte." Psalms, chap- 
ter 7. 

Tbe above quotation speaks for itself. It needs no 
explanation or comment. Colenso bas shot matbematical 
arrows at tbe trutb of tbe Bible, and tbey fell upon bis 
own bead, and be now lies before tbe world in bis mis- 
chievous ditch wbicb be dug, and ponders upon tbe false- 
hoods wbicb be brought fortb from tbe iniquitous concep- 
tion of his heart. 



222 A COLLECTION OE THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

NONSENSICAL AND GROUNDLESS QUESTIONS ASKED BY 

COLENSO. 

If the reader of this work will become as disgusted 
with Colensonism as we are, which we hâve no doubt he 
will, he can skip this chapter; and we would gladly do 
so; for there is not even an apparent ground in the Bible 
upon which to base any of the questions he lias raised 
against the truth of the Bible, ail of which that we remeni- 
ber are mentioned in this chapter, which is the one that is 
to rid our " Thoughts " of the Colensonian impious folly; 
which w^e gladly would avoid to bring before the reader. 
But if we should do as we ought and désire, to leave out 
thèse questions, the Colensos and the Ingersolls would say 
that thèse queries are unanswerable, and that we did not 
answer them because we were unable to answer them* 
And the reader who has not read Colenso's book of impious 
and wicked folly may to a certain degree be led to believe 
what they say; and that would give them, the Colensos, 
cause to think themselves " wise in their own conceit." 
We would thus wilfully violate a biblical precept, to give 
cause for the reader to be misled, and for the Bishop as 
well as for bis devotees to consider themselves wise. Con- 
scquently, we are compelled to review the questions, and 
will only answer them according to the folly of the ques- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 22 



tion, vvhich will be in accordance with the biblical prover- 
bial precept, " Answer a fool according to his folly." 

Query No. i. When the Israélites were at the Red 
Sea, and saw that the Egyptians, their late masters, were 
behind them and the whole war power of Egypt with 
them, the Israélites became despondent and said to Moses, 
" Why hast thou taken us eut of Egypt?" and were will- 
ing or spoke of returning to Egypt, without attempting to 
fight or ofFering a blow for their own liberty as well as 
for the freedom of their wives and children! It cannot be 
supposed or said, says the Bishop, that they had no arms. 
Where did they get the arms with which, but a few days 
thereafter, they had fought the Amalekites and overcame 
them? asks the Bishop. 

Answer according to query: They did not lîght the 
Egyptians because they had no arms. The arms with 
which, in a few days thereafter, they fought the Amale- 
kites, they took from the drowned Egyptians whom the 
water brought up to the shore, as it does with ail or most 
of those that are drowned. 

The Bishop says the word " harnessed " (Exodus 13: 
18) means armed; hence, he says, they had arms of war 
with them when they left Egypt. Then he asks, if they 
had arms when they left, why did they not light for their 
liberties? And he concludes they could hâve had no arms; 
and as they had only asked to be allowed to absent them- 
selves for the time of three days and then come back, he 
concludes that the Bible is not true, because it says they 
were armed. We will make no reply to that, because we 
hâve in a former chapter shown that the word " har- 
nessed " is a mistranslation of tb*^ Hebrew word Chamoo- 
shim, a fifth part. 



iî24 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

And Colenso draws out another reason from the bibli- 
cal account of the Exodus, which, he says, shows conclu- 
sively that the historical account of the Bible is not true! 
And that is, because he, the learned Bishop, does not, as 
his own book shows, know the différence between asking 
to be allowed to go to a place that it takes three days to 
reach, and allowing to be absent three days! But we will 
tell him that he who asks to be allowed to be away three 
days must corne back at the expiration of the three days, 
or the time that he was allowed to be away. And he 
who asks and obtains leave to go to a place that he may 
reach in three days, and bas notdefînitely said what he will 
do there, nor how long he will stay there, neither w^ien 
he will return, can stay in the place as long as he likes 
without violating the permission, and without creating a 
cause to question, why did not he, who gave the permis- 
sion pursue him to whom the permission was given at the 
expiration of three days, and not wait until the former had 
reached a distance of ten or more days; which is what 
Colenso asks, and by which he shows that the biblical 
narrative of what took place at, and how the Israélites 
crossed the Red Sea cannot be true. 

The Israélites did not ask leave for three days time; 
they asked permission to go a distance of three days jour- 
ney into the désert to serve their God, and said, or Moses 
said for them, they did not know what service their God 
would require of them, and that they could not know it 
before they came to that place; hence they could not tell 
how long they would hâve to stay there, nor when they 
could or would return. And if they had even said they 
would stay there bur one day, they could not hâve re- 
turned before the end of seven days; and that is the reason, 
Mr. Bishop, why the Egyptians did not run after the Is- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 225 

raelites at the expiration of the thircî or some time during- 
the fourth day, but waited until they did go after them, 
and that was when they were told that their slaves t!".'c 
Israélites did run away, and which they, the Egyptian-iv,, 
could not hâve known for some time, because they h;.^]l 
reason to suppose they were performing their service, anCl 
w^ould allow some reasonable time for it, say three days; 
hence the Egyptians could not hâve reasonably supposed 
that the Israélites had run ofF before the end of nine days 
from the time they left, and could only hâve started to 
overtake them on the tenth day; and if they had traveled 
vvrith ail the speed that such an army could travel, or with 
the speed that you, Mr. Bishop, make them move, which 
y ou say must hâve been three times as fast as the Israélites 
had marched, even then the Egyptians could not hâve 
overtaken the Israélites before the fîfteenth day from the 
time the latter had left. And by that time the Israélites 
could already hâve been on the other side of the Red Sea 
and beyond the reach of their pursuers, even according to 
your own measu rement of the distance from the place the 
Israélites started from, and as you make them and their 
pursuers travel, which is, you lay ail of the impedi- 
ments and obstacles in the way of the flying slaves to 
make them move slow, and the entire army of Egypt 
with " ail her chariots and horses," which you start out 
in no time at ail, you move and make travel with ail the 
rapidity of your imagination, which you may succeed to 
demonstrate to yourself in theory, but you nor any one 
else never was and never will be able to bring into prac- 
tice. 

You see that with ail the aid of your mind, which 
has become pregnant from the wickedness of your heart, 
and has "brought forth its falsehoods" to the world, and 



226 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

which puts ail the stumbling-blocks in the path of the 
Israélite», _yet with ail thèse the Egyptians, as you see, 
could not hâve overtaken the Israélites if it hacl not beeii 
that the Israélites had turned back from " Succoth at the 
edge of the wildernes" to Pi-ha-hiroth, and had encamped 
there and waited until their masters came to them (Ex., 
chap. 1 3), for whom they had waited ; and the reason why 
they had waited for them was for the purpose that they 
shguld pursue them so that they should be drowned in the 
océan of water, which pimishment they were to and did 
receive for the wickedness of their hearts, the same as 
we are now reviewing and opening your foolish ques- 
tions for no other purpose than to drown you in the 
océan of your own folly, for the purpose of punishing 
you, Mr. Colenso, for the wickedness of your heart, from 
whence your foolish mind draws its folly! 

Man gathers wisdom and knowledge from practice 
and observation. Physicians acquire the knowledge of 
how to cure a malady from the malady itself. And we 
must and do acknowledge that we hâve gained some 
knowledge during the time that we hâve been engaged in 
dissecting the body of the Bishop's foolishness. And the 
knowledge we hâve gained therefrom is this: It makes 
us think and believe that if the Bible would say that the 
Israélites, who were the descendants of slaves as well as 
they were slaves themselves, and, with the exception of 
Abraham, none of their ancestors, as well as they, had 
ever confronted an army or drawn a sword on a battle- 
field. Human nature was then what it is now. Habit 
controls and gov^rns the acts and temper of the human 
race as well as nature. The born and brought-up slave, 
who has been habituated to obey and whom circumstances 
and condition hâve compelled, and he who was taught by 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 227 

his parents to be obedient and submissive, cannot possess 
and display the same courage that one would who never 
had the yoke of oppression upon his neck nor the slave- 
whip upon his back, was born free and was brought up 
without the knowledge of any other master than his own 
will. The master is to the ignorant slave what the w^ill 
and mind are to the free and educated man! Can or will 
any man fight against his will and mind? Certainly not. 
Neither can an ignorant, submissive, and bruised up and 
weak slave fîght or ofFer to fight his master! 

And it is certain that if the Bible would say that the 
Israélites did fight the Egyptians and possessed and used 
the courage of a free and warlike race who knew no other 
master than their own will, it would indeed hâve been a 
great and very reasonable cause to question the historical 
veracity of the Bible. That would hâve been of greater 
injury to the biblical truthfulness than ail the Colensos and 
Ingersolls can invent. 

Having gained that much knowledge from or through 
the dissecting proccss of a part of the body of folly, we 
must proceed with our anatomical process and dissect the 
whole body of the Colensonian folly, or that part of it 
which we hâve retained in our memory.* 

Query No. 2. Where did the Israélites get "Shittim 
wood " to build the tabernacle in the désert? 

No. 3. Where did they get sheep for the Passover 
sacrifice, which the Bible says they celebrated in a year 
after they left Egypt? The Bishop says it took a certain 
(incredible) number of sheep, one-half of which would havç 



*AVe hâve not his book, 



228 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

glutted and stuffed every Israélite with mutton, as Colenso's 
mind is glutted and stuffed with folly. 

The Passover sacrifice that the Israélites had made in 
Egypt was for the purpose of ridiculing the Egyptians, 
who worshiped sheep, and were therefore commanded to 
smear the blood of the Egyptian deity which the Israélites 
had sacrificed upon the doors of the latter, which was 
done for no other purpose than to plaguc and grieve the 
Egyptians, because they were made to believe that their 
own deity h:;:l saved the Israélites, who had butchered it, 
and it had not saved the Egyptians, who had prayed to 
and w^orshiped it. And for that and no other reason they 
were told to take the sheep on the tenth day of the month 
and keep it until the evening of the fourteenth day of the 
sarae nnonth; and for the purpose of giving perfect pub- 
licity to the disgrâce of the Egyptian deity, the Israélites 
were told to hâve one of thèse deities in each and every 
house and make a whole meal out of it. But ail the sub- 
séquent Passover sacrifices were only annual commémora- 
tions of the event; the size of an olive was as much as 
any one needed to eat, and it was not every one that did 
eat it, or killed the Passover lamb after they came to the 
land of Canaan. He who lived at such a distance from 
Jérusalem that he could not reach that place in one day 
was coisidered in a far journey, and it was not in- 
cumbent upon him to corne to Jérusalem for the purpose 
of the Passover sacrifice. It istrue, the Bible says, He that is 
in a far journey shall celebrate the Passover on the four- 
teenth day of the second month. But if he is at the same 
distance during the second month? What then.^ Then he 
is relieved from it. 

We hâve traveled away from our subject, because the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 229 

Bishop very elaborately shows that it was impossible for 
ail the Israélites to congregate at Jérusalem at oiie and the 
same time for the purpose of performing the killing of the 
Passover lamb, and shows that the Levitical law in regard 
to the Passover lamb is inconsistent, because in Egypt 
they were told to smear the blood of the lâmb upon the 
doors, and the blood of the subséquent Passover lambs 
they were told to pour upon tlie altar. Hence he con- 
cludes that the historical account of it is not true. That 
is, because he, Colenso, don't know enough of the Bible 
to know that the Passover sacrifice after they left Egj'pt 
became a national mémorial célébration and was celé- 
brated at the capital of the nation; and for whom it 
was convenient to come there, came and participated in 
the célébration; and the blood of that sacrifice was to 
be poured upon the altar, as the blood of every sacrifice 
was to be; or he, Colenso, hides his knowdedge of the 
fact for the purpose of accomplishing his mischievous end 
of showing that the Bible is false! 

We don't wish to fill up the space of our "Thoughts" 
and "Key" with the mischievous folly of an English 
Prelate, with which our mind is almost glutted; there- 
fore we try to kill as many of his flying birds with 
one *' jerk " of the " Little Stone " as we possibly can ; 
and whatever we omit hère, in making out a complète 
answer to the subject in question, for the reader, we will make 
up when we come to investigate the law appertaining to 
sacrifices from a biblical stand-point. 

We will now résume our subject. Where did the 
Israélites get Shittim wood from for the Tabernacle, and 
the sheep they needed for the Passover célébration at 
« Horeb?" 



230 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

If the Bishop is sure that the place around "Horeb" 
was as *bare at the time in question as it is now, and 
he gives as an undisputed fact that it was, and therefore, 
he says, it cannot be said that they had sheep which they 
brought ont from Egypt, because they had nothing to 
feed them on. * Then we say they must hâve, could hâve, 
and did buy their sheep of the Midianites, whose h^nd 
could not hâve been very far from Horeb; because wc 
are told that Moses fed the sheep of his father-in-lavv 
who lived in A'Iidian, who was a priest (which means 
lord) of Midian, and who was at the time in question 
among the Israélites. (Exodus, chap. 18.) And if God 
did not know that the Israélites, in order to fulfîll His 
command, will hâve to build a Tabernacle in that (présent) 
barren place; and if He did not hâve the power to hâve 
" Shittim wood" or any other wood growing there for that 
particular purpose, if for no other, then the Israélites would 
and must hâve bought their Shittim wood where they 
bought or got their sheep. 

And we believe the fact of the présent barrenness of 
the vicinity around Horeb is no more proof that it was so 
then, than the swamps of the Euphrates valley, which 
baffle the world to-day, as they hâve for centuries long, 
from locating the place where the great historical city of 
Babylon, with her impregnable walls and wonderful gar- 
dens, could hâve stood ! The existence of which is so well 
established that we bave no need to bring the Bible on the 
witness-stand for the purpose of proving a fact which no 
history ever did or does deny. But we will bring up the 
undisputed and indisputable fact of the existence of Babylon 
for the purpose of proving the Bible; the book in which 
Isaiah has recorded not only the downfall of the great 
city, that was the monarch and wonder, the terror and envy 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



of the world, but bas also recorded and described tbe mari- 
ner in wbich it would fall, as well as called its destroyer 
(Cyrus) by name, between two and three hundred years 
before he was born; and recorded tbat it would be what 
it is, and "will never be rebuilt!" Thèse facts prove be- 
yond a shadow of doubt the Divine truth and insjoiration 
of the Bible, as the existence of Babylon is proven and 
cannot be successfuUy disputed. 

And that same Bible tells the world that Moses fed 
the sheep of bis father-in-law in the vicinity of the place 
in question, which is very reasonable évidence that it w^as 
not as barren and desolate a neighborhood as it is now. 

The next question the mischievous and impious Bishop 
Colenso asks, and by which he endeavors to disprove the 
Bible is: How could Aaron and bis two sons take care of 
ail the sacrifices? To which we might reply: Mr. Bishop 
you yourself say and prove that they had no sheep nor 
cattle, though the Bible tells us they had oxen, and that 
some of them had devoted oxen and wagons to carry the 
Tabernacle with, after it was put up, and that was in the 
first month of the second year after they lett Egypt, and 
in that month the Passover feast is and was celebrated; 
and having had an abundance of cattle in Egypt, which 
they took along with them, besides w^hat they took from 
the Egyptians, (Exodus, chap. 9 and 10,) as there was but 
elevendays journey from Horeb to the land of their des- 
tination, it is reasonable to suppose that they had some of 
their cattle saved. And after the death of Miriam, when 
they were near the place of their destination, the Israélites 
spoke of their cattle not having water to drink (Num., 
chap. 20). But for ail that, we say to Colenso: If you 
arc certain they had no sheep nor cattle before the Taber 



232 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

nacle was erected, why do you make them bring and 
ofFer so many sacrifices as you do, since the biblical law 
not only did not make it incumbent on them to bring ail 
the sacrifices you speak of, but definitely provides that the 
laws should not corne into force until after they should be 
in their land; and it even provides that the law should not 
corne into force until after the Lord should choose a place 
for that purpose, and that was not donc until the time of 
Solomon! Even folly is subject to, and governed by the 
laws of consistency. Hence this self destructive inconsist- 
ency of the querist can only be accounted for by bis mis- 
chievous motives! 

In the 30th chapter of Exodus it says: 

" When thou takest the su m of the children ot Israël 
" after their number, then shall they give every man a 
" ransom unto the Lord. This shall they give: every one 
" that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel 
" after the shekel of the sanctuary; a shekel is twenty 
*' gerahs." 

One who never saw a silver dollar can easily know 
the value of a half a dollar, as well as of a dollar, w4ien 
he knows that one hundred cents make one dollar. But 
Bishop Colenso asks: How did the Israélites know what 
a shekel of the sanctuary was, before the sanctuary was 
built? And to prove his logic he copies from the Bible 
the same that we hâve above, but leaves out the part that 
describes what a shekel is — " a shekel is twenty gerahs."- 
This he leaves out in his quotation. Hence he concludes 
that the biblical history is untrustworthy ! That is a ques- 
tion which we don't venture to décide! The reader must 
form his own opinion about it. We bave oftei-. sheltered 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 233 

the Bishop under the cover of ignorance, for the purpose 
of saving the empty title from something worse, and would 
gladly do so now; but it cannot shelter him now. Prat- 
tling nonsense can be applied to folly; but the last named 
noun, toUy, is not able nor wilhng to take upon itself the act of 
lying and steaUng for personal gain! 

The walls of the court of the Tabernacle were of cur 
tains, each side by itself (see Exodus, chapter 33). Bishop 
Colenso asks: How could Moses consecrate Aaron and 
his sons in the présence of ail the Israélites, when the 
consécration took place inside ot the court of the Taber- 
nacle? Therefore the Bible is not true. That is, because 
Colenso does not seem to knovv that the curtains were but 
fiv^e cubits long and slid on rings, and could be moved to- 
gether or thrown over the bar upon which they hung. 
But there was even no need for that, for it is only Colenso 
who says the consécration of Aaron was to take place in- 
side of the court of the Tabernacle. Fortunately, the Bible 
simply says that it should be done and was done at the 
door of the Tabernacle, and not inside of the court: 

" Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the gar- 
" ments and anointing oil. * * * And gather thou ail 
" the congrégation together unto the door of the Taber- 
" nacle of the congrégation. And Moses did as he was 
" coinmanded." (Le\^, chap. 8.) 

Hère is another question of veracity bet-ween Colenso 
and the Bible, which the reader must décide! 

But the criticism of the learned Bishop does not end 
hère. The Bible says: 

" And Moses said unto the congrégation, Thîs is the 



234 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



" thing which the Lord commanded to be done. And 
" Moses brought Aaron and his sons and w-ashed them 
" with water." (Same chap.) 

The Bishop asks: " How could Moses make himself 
be heard by ail the Israélites?" We question if Colenso 
knows or has ever heard that the Président of the United 
States addresses the people of the United States every four 
years. We base our question on the very reasonable suj^- 
position that if he had known of the latter, which includes 
a population of over fifty millions, he would either not 
hâve asked how Moses could make himself heard by the 
assembly who had assembled themselves together at the 
time in question to witness the consécration of Aaron, or 
he would hâve asked: How can fifty millions of people 
at one and the same time get into the city of Washington, 
and how can the Président speak so loud as to be heard 
by fifty millions of people? No prophet nor inspiration 
could make Colenso believe that! 

The reader may undertake to inculcate some faith, or 
invent some plan, to make the learned Bishop believe either 
one of the things in question; we can't! Though we 
would undertake, and we believe we would succeed, to 
convince an ordinary American mule that there is nothing 
of an impossibility in it, and tell him how it was and how 
it is done: but we will not undertake, because we believe 
we cannot succeed, to make the Right Rev. Bishop Co- 
lenso believe or understand such a thnig. It is altogether 
abovc his learning, above his title, and above his disgraced 
dignity to believe thèse things, or the like of them! And 
certainly not in accordance with his interest as an author. 
An editor of a weekly newspaper had at the bottom of 
an editorial column: *' Thèse lines are inserted for no 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 235 

other piirpose than to fîll up this column." And \ve be- 
lieve that Colenso bas raised tbese questions, and a good 
many otbers like them, for no other purpose and use 
tban to fill up bis book, wbich successfully sells in tbe 
book-markets of tbe world because it bas tbe bisbopric 
flag on its masts ! 

Tbe Bisbop, in bypocritical, pious words, at tbe con- 
clusion of bis book, congratulâtes Cbristianity and tbe 
world tbat tbey are no longer obliged to believe in tbe 
horrible murder and beart-sickening butchery of tbe Midi- 
anites, tbeir wives and cbildren, wbich tbe Old Testament 
tells us tbat tbe Israélites and Moses committea, because 
be measured tbe time froni tbe time wben Aaron died 
until tbe first day of tbe twelftb month of tbe fortieth 
year, tbe day tbat Moses began to explain tbe law, (Deut. 
cbap. I,) and be finds tbere was no time left for tbe Is- 
raélites to engage in a war witb tbe Midianites. And in- 
deed be does measure tbe time, as if it bad been practicable 
to measure time in a quart measure. He concludes tbat 
during tbe tbirty day s tbat tbe Israélites w^ere mourning 
tbe deatb of Aaron, nor dunng any other time wbich 
elapsed between tbe last date and tbe time wben Moses 
began to explain tbe law, tbe Israélites could not send ofF 
12,000 men to fight tbe nation in question, but were ail 
engaged and occupied witb tbe events he enumerates and 
tbe other work he lays out for them as tbe time in wbich 
tbey were to perform tbe same. 

But this case is not an exception to tbe old adage, 
" Many cooks spoil tbe broth;" and " Wben crooks dis- 
agree among themselves honest people get tbeir own." 

Tbe expressed motive of Bisbop Colenso and of Prof. 



236 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Robinson Smith, as they say it is, is to establish Christi- 
anity — to be independent of the Old Testament; which is 
and always bas been the expressed motive of every rebel 
chief. Independence bas been the outcry of ail of them 
that were in existence from the time of the rebels Baalze- 
bub and Antichrist, whose rébellion is described by the 
gifted Mi^on in bis " Paradise Lost," down to the time of 
Colenso, Smith, and the Russian Nihilists. The motto of 
ail of them was and is, Independence! 

But, while Colenso says it took Moses a month to 
make the Book of Deuteronomy, and consequently there 
was no time for the Israélites to fight the Midianites, the 
other chief, Prof. Robertson Smith, in bis twelve lectures 
that he lately delivered, because be was expelled as Pro- • 
fessor from the Collège of Edinburgh for joining Co- 
lenso's rebel army, he says that the Book of Deuter- 
onomy was not in existence until after the time of 
Prophet Isaiah! Now, we ask the reader what are we 
to do? If we believe one, we cannot believe the other. 
If the Book of Deuteronomy was not in existence until 
the time the Professor says, then we cannot believe the 
Bishop, for there was a whole month's time during 
which the Israélites could bave fought the Midianites; 
and had the Bishop known of it before he wrote bis 
"Attack upon the Pentateuch," he would bave employed 
the Israélites in some other work during that month. 
Under thèse circumstances w'e can do no more nor less 
than place both of them where Milton placed the chiefs 
of the rébellion he describes. 

And though they may be better satisfîed to stay 
and rule there than to serve above, yet we know they 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 237 

would rather eat one another than to say the other is 
right, and I am wrong! 

We will now let them be where they belong, and 
see what our own chief, neighbor and friend, R. G. In- 
gersoU, bas to say of himself. 



23S A COLLECTION OF TJIOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXIV. 
ingersoll's own thoughts. 



" Banish me from Eden when you will, but first 
let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge!" 

The foregoing is the prayer of Mr. Ingersoll. And 
if we had reason to beheve that our fiiend is not yet 
so far gone but that prayer could help him, we not 
only would join him and pray for him, but we would 
call upon the praying communities to hold spécial prayer- 
meetings and fervently pray that our friend Bob shall 
obtain and possess himself of a httle knowledge and un- 
derstanding, so that he may at least know enough to 
keep his tongue from speaking of things, of which 
the more he speaks the more he exposes his want 
of knowledge about the things he speaks of! But, alas! 
alas! He is too far gone! We might advise him a better 
remedy than eating of the " fruit of the tree of knowl- 
edge," which is the emblem of death; we would advise 
him to drink of the " River Pison which compasseth 
" the whole land of Havilah, vvhere there is gold. And 
*' the gold of that land is good. There is bdellium, 
*' and the onyx stone." (See index to " Collection of 



Thoughts.") 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 239 

But we hardly believe that will help him, unless he 

should take a very strong emetic that can relieve him 

of the water he has in him which he drank out of the 

" River Gihon, that encompasseth the whole land of 

Ethiopia," which is also one of the strcams of the great 

river that came and cornes out of the garden (mind) 

that God hath planted in Eden (time). But unfortun- 

ately the River Gihon, of which our friend has drank 

during his wdiole Hfetime, contains ail the impurities, 

maladies, and blackness (which last produces black-vomit) 
that are represented by and subject to the wild land of 

Ethiopia, but which cannot live and prosper in the well 

cultivated, civilized lands of Europe and America, whose 

inhabitants drink out of the stream of "Pison" and hâve 

enriched themselves with the "good gold," with "bdel- 

lium" and "onyx stone" of the " land of Havilah." To 

give Mr. IngersoU an emetic that would relieve him of 

ail the impurities he has inhaled, and which are the 

causes of his black-vomiting, would leave nothing of 

him, or bring him to a worse condition than he is in 

now! Consequently we see no belp for him, but offer 

the same prayer for him that the father did for his 

ungodly son: 

A father had two sons; the oldest one was a wise 
God-fearing and God-loving youth; the other one was 
just the reverse. The father took sick and was about to 
die. He called his oldest son to his bedside, begged him 
to be, and fervently prayed that he shonld be, a God-loving 
and upri^ht man. The ungodly son stood at a distance, 
and expected that his father would draw fire from heaven 
and throw it at him when he called him up; but to his 
great surprise and disappointment his father simply said: 
" My son, the only prayer that I hâve or can make in 



240 A COI.LECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

" your behalf is, that you shall never hâve to become 
" better than you are." The mother, who stood by her 
husband's bed while thèse things took place between the 
departing father and the son, thoiight the old man was de- 
lirious and did not recognize, or made a mistake between 
bis two sons, and said: " My dear husband, this is our 
" youngest son; why don't you pray that he shall be as 
" our oldest son is?" To which the father replied: " I 
*' know he is but I don't wish he shall be compelled to 
" better himself^ because at présent he is as bad as any man 
" can be in everything that is between God and man; and 
" it is as impossible for a man to return from bis evil doings 
" w^ithout a compulsive cause as it is for a ^vheel that bas 
" been started to run down hill, without anything to hold 
" or govern it, to stop before it comes to the bottom ; and 
" before our son could better himself he would perpetrate 
" ail the evils and commit ail the wrongs and crimes that 
" one man could do to another, he would first bave to 
" reach the bottom ; they would hâve to imprison him for 
" bis crimes, and that would be a disgrâce to me in my 
" grave, and a disgrâce and grief to you on earth. But if 
" he will remain in bis présent condition, it is no disgrâce 
" to us, and he does no harm to the w^orld. Every man, 
" woman and child that knows him, knows he is an un-, 
" godly child ; and if they learn of him some of bis evils 
" it is their own fault, because they know what he is. 
Hence, my wife, I do not wish that he shall better bim- 
" self." 

For the same reasons we offer the same {jrayer for 
our friend Mr. Ingersoîl. Everybody who knows him or 
bas heard of him knows that he is an ungodly child. But 
he is not guilty of anything that injures man! Before he 
could turn from bis course he would first bave to become 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 24Ï 

guilty of the evils which one man is capable of doing to 
another; that might act as an emetic to cleanse him of the 
evils he lias inhaled, and that would leave nothing of him; 
hence the prayer that he shall never better himself! And 
if any man does learn of him any of his imgodly 
ways, it is the fault of him who learns it, because he 
ought to know that IngersoU is only a witty talker, the 
same as a bufFoon, or a clown in a circus, or the leader of 
a negro minstrel company; but is not, — and his book enti- 
tled "The Gods" and other lectures show that he cannot 
claim to be, — a thinker upon any subject, except the sub- 
ject of empty famé, for the utterance of glossy, empty 
words. 

Thomas Paine is the subject of one of the lectures in 
that book, in which he repeats what every one who knows 
the history of the United States knows, what Mr. Paine 
was, and which is engraved upon the impregnable walls 
of their freedom. And in his attempt to redeem the name 
of Thomas Paine, who wrote the "Age of Reason," which 
is inséparable from the purpose for which the " Common 
Sensé,*' "The Crisis" and the "Rights of Man" were 
written, as the author of thèse books is one and conse- 
quently inséparable, he only pawns him, and on him (Paine) 
he gets his traveling expenses to go further into the sea of 
ignorance, that has existed for three, four, and fîve thou- 
sand years, and drags the famé of Mr. Paine with him as 
a letter of crédit and introduction, by claiming that Paine 
was the same as he is — an inconsistent and contradictory 
Self. 

We will hère demonstrate, by a quotation which he 
has made from the "Age of Reason" and has inserted in 
his lecture, that he does not understand the "Age of Rea- 
son." Nay, he does not even understand the quotation 



17 



1242 A COLLECTION OF TMOUGHTS, 

itself. And that is a quotation which we omitted, through 
an oversight, to make use of when we were wricing about 
the motives of Mr. Paine for writing the " Age of Rea- 
son." Mr. Paine in his confession of faith says: " And 
man will return to the worship of one God." 

The Word return necessarily means to corne back to a 
place or condition, or corne to the same behef again. The 
Word return cannot be appHed to a place that we bave 
never been in, nor to a condition that we bave never occu- 
pied; neither to a belief or an opinion which we bave 
never had. Consequently Mr. Paine could not bave meant 
th it his " Age of Reason " or whatever be alluded to will 
bring man to a condition or place in v^hich be never was 
before! And we challeno^e Mr. Ino^ersoU to show us when 
man did not believe in a God! But we know that \ve 
might as well ask or cballenge a musical instrument to 
compose a tune. He is a musical instrument. He sends 
OLit the tune according to the blovving of the musicians, of 
Avhom not one in a tbousand is the composer of the tune 
that he plays. He bas undoubtedly read; but reading with- 
out studying to understand or digest what you are reading 
does as much good to the reader as the air wbich tbe mu- 
sician sends into bis instrument does to the instrument; it 
produces the sound, and if any air is left in it, it must be 
removed before fresh air can be sent in to produce another 
Sound; and when it receives too much wind or air it gives 
no sound at ail. 

" Any System of religion that shocks the mind of a 
" cbild cannot be a true System," says Bob. 

What could any reasonable man or community of men 
think of Ingersoll or any other lawyer if he or they vvould 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 243 

ask the lawyer, whoever he might be, for some légal ad- 
vice, and he, the lawyer, would tell him or them to wait 
until he could consult his youngest child, which was be- 
tween seven and ten years old? What would he or they 
think about the lawyer who told them so? Could they 
conclude or believe otherwise than that he, the lawyer, 
was a fool or insane, or that he took them for such? 
And would not the world consider that man or com- 
munity of men as fools or lunatics to entrust their most 
important business in the hands of a lawyer who knows 
nothing himself, and does only as his child or children 
or the children of the town in which he lives tell him? 
How could the world avoid coming to that conclusion? 
There is not a business in the world in which every 
man is as equally and deeply interested as he is in mat- 
ters appertaining to or arising out of religion. And that 
is not only so now, but has been so ever since man 
first dwelt upon the face of the globe. Yet there is a 
class of men who consult about and entrust Ingersoll 
with their share of that important business, who knows 
nothing of the said business himself, but takes the advice 
of, and acts as the prattling children in their innocent 
play on the streets advise him to do; w^iich is what he 
says, and as his book show^s he does! 

Ingersoll says that infidelity and infidels bave liberated 
man's mind and broken the chains with which the Bible 
and religion hâve chained the thoughts of man to the 
immovable rock of blind faith. We ask, is that true? 
Did he make that statement, or the several statements 
in his lecture on Thomas Paine — ot which, what we give 
hère is but a brief abstract, — did he makc those state- 
ments on anything that is found in the Bible known as 



244 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the Old Testament?* Does not the biblical account of the 
création of m an tell man that he is free and powerful, 
and that he, man, was made in the image of his Cre- 
ator; and that He, the Creator, has appointed him, man, 
the sole agent and représentative to represent the Creator 
in that part of His création or domain known as the 
earth; and telling him at the same time not to imagine 
that anything which he sees or can see "from the earth 
or in the earth" is above him, man; so that he may 
not consider himself in duty bound to pay respect to 
or worship and thank them for the many benefîts he 
receives through them, but not from them; because they 
are but the agents of the same Omnipotent Power who 
placed them in their sphère that has placed man in his? 
And that whenever man finds himselt in a conscientious 
mood of thankfulness for the many blessings he receives 
from his Creator, he shall thank or express his thank- 
fulness to the Sender, and not to him through whom it 
was sent. Is that enslaving the mind and thoughts of man 
to bhnd faith? 

Second. Is the Bible or biblical religion teaching 
blind faith to man in the lesson it gives to him by telling 
him of the time and place, where and w^hen, God, or He, 
This, or That, w^hich created man, of the thing or things 
that are not only good and of great interest to man, but 
without vs^hich (the Bible or the laws of God) he cannot 
nor never could know^ that he is a mnn, any more than 
they who lived before the Bible was given to man knew 
what they were and what their duties were, or to whom 



*We will explain what is said in the New Testament about faith when 
we reach that part of the Bible. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 245 

the natural feelings of their heart-felt obligations were due? 
Nevertheless, they felt within their hearts a natural con- 
scientiousness that they owed to some one for the necessi- 
ties and blessings they received and without which they 
could not exist at ail, and paid their conscientious indebt- 
edness to the vehicle upon which the necessities and bless- 
ings were brought to them! To which folly infîdelity and 

infîdels invite us to return, the same as they hâve already 
returned ! 

We ask, would or could it reasonably be considered 
enslaving or chaining man's mind and thoughts when it is 
represented to him what he needs and without which he> 
cannot exist, and leave to his own option and considération 
to accept the thing ofiered to him, or not? As the Bible 
tells us it was at the time and place when the Sender of 
ail that is good and useful to man desired and thought fit 
to manifest to man what is useful to him, and without 
which he, man, could never know what he is nor what 
his Maker intended him to be. Ail of which was ex- 
plained to man in the isolated and obscure place of Sinai, 
at or shortly after the océan had lent its aid by causing its 
watery élément to divide itself and stand up as impregnable 
walls of solid rock for the purpose of giving a passage to 
man, that he might see the natural way how to pass from 
slavery to freedom! AU of which condition, place and 
circumstances, each and ail, tend to show that man was not 
in a condition then to consult his mind and thoughts, but 
was compelled to accept whatever given and do whatso- 
ever ordered to do. Nevertheless, even then man was 
expected to consult his mind and reflect with his 
thoughts, whether he should receive what was ofFered 
to him or not! The messeng^er, Moses, who was to be 



246 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the bearer and deliverer of the thing in question, without 
which man cannot exist, or know that he is a man, to 
go and consult, and give them three days time to reflect 
and think whether they shall, will, or should receive 
that great and indispensable gift that God gave to man, 
the Bible, which contains the acknowledged title of man- 
kind and of his position, in which the great Omnipotent 
Ruler bas placed him, in the sphère in which he, man, 
exists! And which was not delivered to man until, after 
the three days consultation and thinking, man said: "AU 
that the Lord will say, I (or we) will do." 

Neither is this the only time and place or circum- 
stance of which the Bible tells us, wherein man's mind, 
thoughts and reason were consulted, for the purpose that 
man may now learn and teach the power and function of 
his thoughts. About four hundred years after the time 
heretofore described, the posterity of the men who received 
the gift and régulations given to them at Sinai, and had 
governed themselves according to the régulations there 
received, — their posterity thought fit to change their form 
of government, which was having one man as judge or 
foreman, into a monarchical form of government, by 
establishing a royal family with an hereditary right to 
rule. Against this Samuel, their old' and faithful judge, 
remonstrated with them and demonstrated to them that 
it would lead them to no happy end! But the Bible 
tells us that the Omnipotent Ruler ordered Samuel to 
inform them fully of the conséquences of a monarchical 
form of government, and let them contemplate upon it, 
and if, after due délibération, they concluded to bave a 
king over them, he should yield to their deliberatc con- 
clusion; which he did! 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 347 

We cannot see how any one caii, without the burning 
shame of falsehood blistering his face, stand iip and in the 
light of ail thèse lessons which the Bible gives to man 
about his freedom of thought and manhood, say the Bible 
chains up man's thoughts and his freedom to the cloud of 
ignorance, which is the partition wall between man as he 
is or chooses for himself to be, and what the Bible says 
God made him to be, and necessity teaches him he can 
be — " the image of his Maker." 

We hâve in a former chapter explained or given the 
reasons why man's understanding and compréhension are 
limited. And we cannot account why ail men hâve not 
tlie power to understand the Bible alike, unless it is for 
the same cause that prompted the refusai of the pétition 
the dogs presented, requesting that they should be made 
lions, and to which they received the following reply: "Your 
allégations are very just and proper, but your request cannot 
be granted." As there may be some of our readers who 
never heard of the pétition and answer w^e speak of, we 
will give a synopsis of it: 

The dogs once held a convention for the purpose of 
finding out how stealing might be stopped, which they 
thought would give rest to the dog, quiet sleep to the 
master, and prevent the thief from violating the law of 
God that says " Thou shalt not steal." It was resolved by 
the convention to send a pétition to the Power that made 
the dog. In the pétition they alleged as foUows: Inas- 
much as everything upon the earth is given to and appro- 
priated for the use of man ; and there is not a créature on 
the earth more faithful to man than the dog is; he watches 
when the man sleeps; but for ail the w^atchfulness of the 
dog stealing still goes on; and the thefts are not commit- 



24S A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ted because the dog does not watch, but because the thief 
is not afraid of the dog; he is only afraid his barking will 
wake up the owner, which is ail that the dog can do, and 
which nine times out of ten he fails to accomplish. Hence 
they petitioned that the dog should be the same as the 
lion is, and men should fear the dog as they fear the lion. 
The resuit would be that the thief would run away from 
the barking of the dog as he would from the roaring of 
the lion. And that would save the dog from useless bark- 
ing, it would not disturb the owner from his sleep, and 
the thief would not violate the command, "Thou shalt not 
steal." 

To which the dogs received the following reply: 

" Your pétition is very just. Your allégations and 
" reasons for your request are proper, and it would be 
" granted, provided you would never bark except when the 
" thief comes to steal; but you dogs bark ail the time and 
" at everything; and if everything at which you bark 
" should fear you as it does a lion, and you should hâve 
" the power that a lion has, you would destroy the whole 
" world. You must therefore remain what you are." 

Infidelity was a very useful watch-dog in times gone 
by. It indeed drove away a great many religions thieves 
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Had the 
infidels stopped their noise after they woke up the owners 
and proprietors of religion (the people), they would hâve 
lionized themselves by so doing; but they bark at every- 
thing they see, and bite one another even m the présence 
of their masters (the people), and claim that the people are 
indebted to them for everything they hâve and enjoy, in- 
cluding liberty and thoughts. Had they been given the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 249 

lion-like power of thought that is required to extract the 
hidden treasure of truth from the Bible, they would hâve 
long ago claimed to be the m asters of heaven and of every- 
thing that is in heaven, the same as they now claim to be 
masters of the earth and of everything that is on and in the 
earth. 

InfîdeHty does not only mean not believing in the 
Scriptures, to which use it has been apphed for the hist 
two hundred years, but it also means unfaithfuhiess, or 
breach of trust; not worthy to be trusted, because he is 
iinfaithful; neghgent of duty. Hence the word infidel em- 
braces not only such men as Ingersoll and the like of him, 
who are not to be entrusted with certain things for the 
same reason that we cannot trust much to or dépend upon 
chiidren; — the reason why we do not and cannot trust 
much to chiidren is not because they are dishonest, but 
simply because they do not know enough to take care of 
what we would entrust to them. 

The wicked, unfaithful, dishonest and untrustworthy 
priests who existed during the dark âges; who forged the 
Bible into fetters whei*ewith they chained the freedom and 
thoughts of the people to the clouds of darkness out of 
the smoke of their fîres, — which clouds were indeed dissi- 
pated by the sun of science, and the same sun shines now 
upon the Bible and reveals to the people the precious truth 
that is hidden in it, which truth the infidel or untrustwor- 
thy priests of the time in question covered up with their 
commentaries and creeds, that are now called theology; — 
thèse priests were the genuine and original infîdels. Had 
they received the power for which their prototypes (the 
dogs) asked, they would hâve brought the whole human 
race to the place where we hope and believe they are. 



250 

But the so-called infîdels of to-day are not what their name 
désignâtes. It is true they cannot be trusted to teach or 
lead the people; but that is not on account of their dis- 
honesty, but on account of their childish understanding. 

There was once a dispute between three men. One 
of them dropped a diamond in a room that was very dark. 
He was sure that the diamond was in the room, but could 
not find it. Another man, who had a Hght with him, 
came into the room, and his light revealed where the dia- 
mond was and the loser of it picked it up. But the man 
who had the Hght claimed that his light brought the dia- 
mond into the room, and therefore he claimed the diamond. 
While thèse two were quarreling about the rightful own- 
ership of the diamond another man came in and advised 
them to sell the diamond and divide the money equally 
between them, and each one of them should give him one- 
half of his share of the money. 

We do not know how the question was settled be- 
tw^een them. But we do know if they had left the ques- 
tion to be decided at *-he présent time, the infidel scientists 
of our day would décide that the diamond belonged to 
him who brought the light into the dark room, the same 
as they claim that ail the truth that lay hidden in the 
Bible from the eye and mind of man during the darkness 
of past times, and which by the light of science man has 
just now begun to perceive, belongs to science and not to 
the Bible. 

Science has the same relation to the Bible and what is 
in it that the light liad to the dark room and the diamond 
that was in it. The man knew that it was in the room, 
but could not discover it during the darkness, when the Bible 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 25 1 

was in the hands of the infidel priesthood of thosc times. 
And the Rev. Charles Voysey, of Loiidon, is the thiîd 
man, who on the iith of September, iSSi, stepped in be- 
tween science and the Bible, and in a lecture advised to 
dispose of the Bible and divide the jDroceeds between them, 
and each shall give him one-half of its share, to establish, 
maintain, or support a religion without the Bible; or he is 
willing that science shall take the whole Bible and that it 
shall support religion! 

We hâve three lectures before us while we are writing 
this; namely, of R. G. Ingersoll, of Rev. Charles Voysey» 
and of Prof. Félix Adler. 

The latter is the most brilliant; utrers more glossy but 
meaningless, empty words, and speaks for three hours long 
without a subject; but we don't know what it is, nor what 
will become of it. There is a subject in a lecture which 
the Professor delivered on the I3th of March, iSSi, at 
Chickering Hall, New York. Yes! In that lecture Ad- 
ler attempts to demonstrate by science the " Personality of 
God " ! ! He seems to believe that he has found a "con- 
scious intelligence in heart;" but people who are not scien- 
tific enough to use scientific words, and are yet inclined ta 
believe that words must hâve some meaning in themselves 
toconvey to the mind, as well as a ringing sound to the 
car, say that intelligence belongs to the mind, and con- 
science to the heart But in his attempt to establish a 
scientific Personal Deity, he bas already succeeded in estab- 
lishing that thèse child-like infidels of the présent time, 
who only musically prattle out the words others bave said, 
as our friend Ingersoll and the Professor himself, are not 
entitled to personality ! 

The Professor has been trying to crawl into Maimon- 



252 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ides' shoes, of which he (the Professor) took ofF (or out) 
the soles (souls)j and therefore he cannot proceed. The 
shoes don't stick to his feet: so he tumbles and hurts him- 
self and his friends. 

" Conscientious intelligence of the heart the universe," 
are words which Maimonides brought into use for the 
purpose of demonstrating the existence of a Suprême 
Power that rules everything, gives life and vitality to every- 
thing, and without which nothing could exist! He com- 
pares it to the heart of the body, which is imperceptible 
to the eye from without, and gives life and vitality to each 
part or member of the body. Adler took the words of the 
father of Hebrew scholars and philosphers, Maimonide, and 
tortured them to death by extracting their soûls from out 
of them and fîlling them with his ethics of moral non- 
sense that he vends as his ovvn productions! We will see 
how he will succeed, and what he has already gained 
by it. 

Ill-acquired wealth and wealth that is to be used for 
an ill purpose is never of much benefit to its owner! 

" Animais," says the Professor, " are often endowed 
" with elaborate instincts, armed with a certain degree of 
" foresight, capable of feelings of pity and attachment, and 
" the marks of individuality are thus both numerous ànd 
" complex; and yet there is not one among the lower ani- 
" mais on whom the dignifying appellation of person can 
" properly be bestowed. Even among hum an beings, not 
" every one is as much a person as others are; and though 
*' in gênerai we attribute personality to ail men and women, 
*^ yet some are in a very limited sensé persons, while oth- 
" ers are very grandly persons. The slaves of passion and 
" the PARROTS of OPINION, (alluding to Bob,) the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 253 

" hooting mobs on the streets, the voting cattle at the poils, 
" are for the time being destitute of personality. The mark 
" of personality, then, is to be found in the conscientious 
" guidance of actions according to law. AU action, indeed, 
" is according to law." 

We hâve copied the above from a printed copy of the 
lecture delivered by the Professor at the time and place 
formerly given, not for the purpose of confutation or com- 
ment; we hâve copied it because it is an internai and ever- 
lasting truth, and because it enables us to benefit our friends 
and fellow-creatures; and though they are our religions 
opponents and enemies, yet in conformity with the teachings 
of ail biblical religions it becomes an imperative duty upon 
us, who profess to belong to one of the religions founded 
upon and supported by the Bible, to benefit our enemies 
whenever and by whatever we can. 

And how fortunate it is for our friends, for whose 
benefit we hâve herein inserted the subject in question, that 
we were not necessitated to copy the same thing from 
6omething that was said in some place of worship by some 
minister or Rabbi at some past time, no différence how 
long ago! And this we could easily hâve done by trans- 
lating it from the " Moureh Nebuchim," which work 
Maimonide seven hundred years ago left in the world for 
the benefit of the human race; and his name cannot be 
forgotten, and his spirit lives in the hearts and illuminâtes 
the spiritual intelligence of those who read and understand 
his thoughtful work! And though, if we had been com- 
pelled to translate the extract in question from the bottom- 
less fountain of thoughts that we hâve described, it would 
hâve contained a vast amount more force and vitality, — 
for we wojld not hâve produced the mère skeletons of lus 



354 ^^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

words; we would hâve brought out the words with the 
spirit that their author (Maimoiiide) filled them with; — but 
had vve done so, either by will or compulsion, we could 
hâve no cause to flatter ourselves of a reasonable prospect 
of benefiting those whom we wish to be benefited by it! 
They would hâve said: " It cornes from a rehgionist. 
" He said it for the purpose of covering up some rehgious 
" dogma. You cannot prove to us rehgion by rehgion, 
" any more than you can prove to us the truth of the 
" Bible by the Bible." 

Consequently it is indeed fortunate that the bénéficiai 
subject cornes from Prof. Félix Adler, who in matters of 
faith is as faithless as our own Bob is! In meaningless 
words he is as nch and glossy as Ingersoll, if not richer! 
The properties or qualities that every animal possesses and 
uses, which the lecturer names, he (the lecturer) is as 
well provided with and makes use of, the same as our 
fimous friend R. G. Ingersoll is and does. Of solid, deep 
thoughts, he and they are equally in great need. But 
they hâve habituated themselves to use no more of it 
than they hâve. 

This lecture having come from such a source, delivered 
under Ingersoll's nose and in his ear, cannot be objected 
to by our friend Bob, to inhale as a medicine that will 
make a man of him, 'uid entitle him to personality, which 
according to the Professor neither Bob nor the Professor 
are cntitled to. 

" AU actions are according to law," says the Professor. 
" The stone that strikes us as we walk, the brute that 
" hunts its prey m the woods, the taithful dog that leaps 
" mto the water to seize a drowning lad, ail act according 
" to law." 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 



-03 



Hence it is conclusive that lie who knows no other 
law than the law by which ail things are governed, which 
law men call the law of nature, and he calls it so for the 
purpose of distinguishing it from the laws appertaining to 
man only; and the acts and doings of man under the law, 
■of which animais know nothing and are not actuated by, 
distinguish man from ail other créatures and things that 
are upon the face of the earth; but he who is in the shape 
of man and lives among men, but is actuated by and ac- 
knowledges no otlier law than the law of compulsive force 
— which is the law by which ail animais act, and which 
man calls the law of nature, — that shape of man certainly 
cannot lay claim to manhood and personality î If such 
shapes of men don't steal, it is because the force of the 
criminal law prevents them from doing so, the same as 
they don't put their hands in the fire because they feel the 
burning beat of the fire; and every animai possesses the 
power of feeling, smelling, hearing, seeing and tastmg! 
lience they are what their own Professer says they are, 
and what he teaches them to be — not men, and not entitled 
to personalit}'; from which jDOsition we wish to extricate 
our friend R. G. Ingersoll, who certainly is included among. 
the "parrots of opinion," because he has swallowed the 
opinions of Colenso, Paine and others, with which ne is 
so filled that he has neither space nor convenience to form 
an opinion of his own, and whose emptv, therefore ringing 
words lead — no! irresistibly drive each and every man, who 
is not a mère shape of a man, to the same conclusion to 
which the lecture of the Professor has driven us. 

But among the many empty words that Ingersoll has 
uttered and does utter, we find that he speaks of a soûl! 
A doctor learns the condition of a patient who sufFers from 
an invisible malady, from the feelings of the patient. And 



256 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the only way the doctor has to ascertain the feelings of a 
patient is from what the patient tells him. And as we are 
undertaking to cure IngersoU of his invisible malady called 
infidelism, we must be governed by what he tells iis, or 
speaks of in gênerai. He usually speaks of and tells us of 
a soûl! And a soûl is an invisible power that men, who 
are not mère shapes ot men, believe they hâve in them, 
and which makes them work as no other créature does or 
can work; and that, they say, is a part of the invisible but 
soul-fceling Creator of man! 

Men only come to sj^eak of and believe in a soûl by 
the action of the soûl in man. And Mr. IngersoU's speak- 
ing of a soûl must be taken as undisputed évidence that 
he has a soûl and that it works within him. 

Is it not reasonable to suppose that he sufFers from 
the working of his soûl, the same as one who has a sharp 
appetite, but some priest has told him he must fast? And 
that is the very thing which we think is the trouble with 
our friend. He is a man, and would be entitled to person- 
ality, but he has not only swallovved Colenso's mathematical 
calculations, but has swallowed Colenso's book and ail, to- 
gether with several other soulless authors of indigestible, 
raw substance, that sickens his innocent soûl; and therefore 
his soûl jDains him, for it craves wholesome food, and that 
is what he does not possess; hence he talks of a soûl! To 
svvallow Colenso, his book, and ail the rest that Mr. In- 
gersoU has swallowed, is more and worse than to swallow 
" Jonah, the whale," and ship in which Jonah was, in- 
cluding sailors and ail! 

To swallow as a truth what Prof. Félix Adler says, 
is enough not only to sicken the soûl of a man, but is 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE. 257 

even more than enough to kill the body of every man who 
bas a soûl in him! 

" Ail actions," be says, " are indeed according to law. 
It is impossible to act contrary to tbe law of tbe world." 
Tbis is, or would be, a clear défense of ail tbe criminals — • 
for every murder tbat bas been or will be committed — if 
men wbo bave soûls in tbem and are entitled to "person- 
ality" w^ould accept it as a trutb or even as a reasonable 
saying. 

How could we punisb a man for doing a law^ful act, 
w^ben be could not belp but do it, and could do it no otber 
wise tban according to law? Wbat a blessed tbing sucb a 
belief would bave been for tbe murderer of Président Gar- 
field, and ail otber murderers! Sucb are tbe bénéficiai 
results of infidel scientific words fiUed witb borse sensé!! 

Among tbe many tbings wbicb our friend bas swal- 
lowed be swallowxd tbat also. And wbat a wonderful and 
powerful as well as successful défense be could bave made 
for Guiteau, if be bad undertaken to défend bim ! Wbat 
could tbe lawyers for tbe prosecution say, if Mr. IngersoU 
bad sbown by tbe lecture of Prof. Adler tbat tbe sbooting 
of Président Garfield was according to tbe law of tbe 
world, and tbat Guiteau could not, according to tbe law of 
tbe world, do otberwise tban sboot bim? Could tbey say, 
or would tbey bave any need of saying any tbing else tban ; 
" Sucb an idea is not even fit for a borse! And it is 
enougb to make a mule laugb" ? Sucb is tbe feast to 
wbicb infidelism invites tbe world! Every tbing tbey run 
througb tbeir scientific macbine of word-making leads to 
tbe same conclusion, namely: Tbat man cannot be pun- 
isbed, will not be punisbed, and ougbt not to be punisbed, 
because be is not a free agent or actor! Tbey bâte tbe 



le 



358 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Bible, because it répudiâtes their theory, They take every- 
thing that eminent men bave said and pervert it to serve 
tbeir machine. 

Maimonide, more than seven hundred years ago, made 
use of the idea of a conscientious intelligence of the uni- 
verse for the purpose of proving to the infidels of bis time 
that there is a God, and that He is invisible, and that He 
cannot be compared to anything whatever that is visible 
or fmite;that He is the Life and Intelligence of the whole 
universe; that v^e only p5rsonify our thoughts! And now, 
in the boasted w^isdom of the last score years of the Nine- 
teenth Century, Prof. Adler, the pride of the proud class 
of scientifîc infidels, takes thèse words, takes ont the life 
of them, fiUs them w^ith ethics, and tries to prove a per- 
sonal God; and if he cannot demonstrate his theorj', then 
each man is compelled by nature to act as he does! 

But doctors say *' there is hope so long as there is 
life." And we know that the fact that one bas begun to 
speak of a God, and the other of a soûl, are reasonable 
grounds to give hope for their recovery! And for the 
purpose that they may recover, we give them our " Col- 
lection of Thoughts and Key to Scrtpture." And, as we 
can attend to but one at a time, we will take our nearest 
and dearest friend and neighbor, Mr. IngersoU. We give 
him our '' Key," with which he not only can open the 
Scriptures, but can also lock up his mouth from ever talk- 
ing of science before he will correct the mathematical 
calculations of Colenso, which he bas swallowed and gives 
out to the world as his own, and we bave shown that they 
would disgrâce even a school-boy that is between ten and 
thirteen years old! Mathematical calculation is the life, the 
vitality, and the "conscientious mtelligence" of ail science, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 259 

and he who proves himself so déficient in figures as Co- 
lenso and our friend Ingersoll hâve proven themselves in 
their mathematical conclusions on the subjects, which we 
hâve in a former chapter reviewed and corrected, is as 
unfit to talk about science as a boy that is under ten years 
old! And our " Collection of Thoughts " may enable him, 
that is if he lias strength or will enough left in him, to form 
some scientific thoughts, instead of spending his time, 
strength and usefulness in getting up empty scientific 
words. 

It is well known and understood w^hy every criminal 
despises and hâtes the criminal law; and it ought to be 
know^n and understood fuUy as v^ell w^hy ail infidels do, as 
Mr. Ingersoll does, hâte and detest the moral law, for the 
causes and reasons are the same in both cases. Mr. 
Ins^ersoll is a lawyer; he understands the criminal law, 
but he knows nothing of the moral law. We will there- 
fore take a chanee of venue of one or two cases from the 
moral courts, and let our friend see if they are as détestable 
and hateful as he says they are when he speaks of them, 
as he has often donc. 

For the purpose chat we may not reveal the names of 
our clients before we come into court, which might be in- 
jurions to their case, we will speak of their case under a 
supposition, as follows: 

A was sentenced to be hanged, but between the day 
of sentence and the day of exécution he ran away from 
jail, stayed away several years, and during that time got 
married. The running away was by the aid of the sheriff, 
who did not want to hang him. But another sherifF came 
into office, and found in his office a death-warrant against 
A, and knew where he was. The time for the exécution 



36o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

of the order of the court was not stated in the warrant. 
Hence the sherifF sent and took A and hung him. The 
question is: Did the sherifF hâve a right to hang him? 
If he had, then there is no question to be asked. But if 
it should be decided in the négative, then arises a ques- 
tion: Was the sherifF guilty of murder, or could he only 
be held and punished for executing the law in an irregular 
nianner, v^hich would hâve been the case if it had been 
found that he had to hâve a nevv order from the court? 
And that, we beheve, wsls not needed, because the time 
for the exécution of the order of the court was not stated 
in the warrant. 

The next question is : Can a bankrupt acquire a légal 
title to property of which the bankrupt law deprives him, 
but which the assignée leaves in his possession and lets him 
use? Or can the son of a bankrupt, to whom the latter 
has assigned the property in question, hâve a légal title to 
the property, when he has no other title to it than what 
he acquired from his bankrupt father? Certainly not! 

Ingersoll, as well as ail who only know the outside 
part of the Bible, say that King David was guilty of mur- 
der and of adultery because he caused the death of Uriah, 
and lived with Bathsheba before Uriah was killed. The 
only évidence they hâve against David is the Bible; let 
us, therefore, see what the Bible sa} s about it. Wc are 
very willing to risk the réputation of King David on 
what the one and only witness, the Bible, says about 
him in regard to the subject in question. And Ingersoll 
nor any other lawyer or man can object to the évidence 
of the Bible, for it is their own and only witness they 
bave against David. Hence the Bible is an undisputed 
witness in this case. Let us, therefore, hear and un- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 261 

derstand what the Bible says about the case in ques- 
tion. 

Second Samuel, chapter ii, says: 

David " saw a womar. washing herself; and the 
" woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David 
" sent and niquired after the w^oman. And one said, Is 
'• not this Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam, the w^ife of 
*' Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers and 
" took her, and she came in unto him, and he lay with 
" her; for she was purified from her uncleanliness; and 
" returned unto her house." 

The narrative, " And David sent messengers and 
took her," is évidence that he took her by force and 
publicly. Hence, what did he send to inquire about her? 
It cannot be supposcd that he sent to inquire of her, 
or ask her consent, for the Bible tells us that as soon 
as he ascertained that she was the wife of Uriah he 
sent and brought her. And if the Bible had intended 
to convey to us the idea that David had committed the 
crime of adultery by being with Bathsheba, it would 
not hâve attempted to justify his being with her; for 
the narrative, «FOR SHE WAS PURIFIED FROM 
HER UNCLEANLINESS," is nothing else than a 
cause for his being with her, or to justify his being 
with her. Why, what has adultery to do with purifica- 
tion? It is true, the Bible prohibits fornication when 
the woman is in her uncleanliness; but adultery is not 
fornication. The latter may be -lawful, but purification 
must be; while the former is a crime punishable by 
death, the same as muider. " The adultérer and adul- 
teress shall surely be put to death." (Lev., chapter 20.) 
Hence we mubt assume, or will for the présent assume, 



262 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

that saying she had purified herself is an attempt by the 
witness (Bible) to justify his being with her. 

Let us now see what the Bible tells us Nathan the 
prophet said to David about the subject in question, when 
he came to rebuke David for what he had done. He 
brought the subject up before David in the way of a 
complaint against a rich man who had plenty of sheep 
and cattle, and y et took the one sheep of the poor 
man to feed the traveler v^^ho came to the rich man. 
In the whole comparison, or complaint, which was in- 
tended to represent to David his ow^n acts in the matter 
of Uriah and Bathsheba, there is nothing that represents 
the killing of Uriah, nor the fact that David was with 
Bathsheba before Uriah was killed. To represent to David 
his killing Uriah, the prophet ought or would, if he in- 
tended to rebuke him for the killing, hâve said that the 
rich man killed the poor man and took his one sheep. 
And at last the prophet at the same time tells David: 
" Now, therefore, the sword shall never départ from thinë' 
/house." Because thou hast killed Uriah? No! Because 
thou hast committed adultery? No! But simply "because 
" thou hast despised me and hast taken the wife of 
" Uriah the Hittite unto thee for a wife." Second Samuel, 
chap. 12. 

Why, we don't see what wrong there was or could 
bave been for any one in taking the wife or widow 
of Uriah, after he was killed, and making her his wife, 
any more than there would be for any one in taking any 
other widow and making her his wife! There was no 
more wrong in David marrying the widow of Uriah than 
there was in his marrying the widow of Nabal! 

We will now see what the Bible tells us David him- 
self said about it- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 263 

Psalms, chapter 51: "A psalm of David when Na- 
" than the prophet came unto him after he had " been with 
'* Bathsheba." Verse 3: " For I acknowledge my trans- 
" gressions, and my sin is before me. Against Thee, Thee 
" only hâve I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight." 

Murder and adultery are crimes which the laws ot 
God make it the duty of man to punish the perpetrator of, 
and they are crimes that the law of tlie land punishes for. 
He certainly had transgressed against Uriah. And thèse 
are crimes that are détestable in the sight of man as well 
as in the sight of God! The greatest question in the case 
is: If the author of the Book of Samuel and of the 5ist 
chapter of Psalms who narrated the subject in question and 
wrote it so questionably for the purpose of protecting the 
character of David, then they could hâve accomplished 
their purpose best by saying nothing about it. 

The answer to ail thèse questions is: Uriah was a 
Hittite! He was of one of the nations who were to be 
utterly destroyed — to leave not a soûl of them. He was, 
as we hâve in a former chapter explained, one of the 
moral bankrupts. He had no more moral rights. He him- 
self was a mère chattel and part of the scheduled property 
which the moral or divine bankrupt law had delivered to 
the assignée (Israël) to dispose of. The civil bankrupt law 
takes everything the body has, with the exception of what 
the law exempts for the need of the body. And the moral 
bankrupt law takes everything that the soûl has; and, as 
the soûl has no need of anything that is on the earth, it 
leaves nothing to the soûl of what it has on earth, but 
takes the exemption of what it has there where the soûl 
goes after it leaves the earth! 

Uriah the Hittite had no more right to claim Bath- 



264 

sheba or any other female as his wife, and Bathsheba was 
no more the lawful wife of Uriah, than a bankrupt farmer 
has a title to the farm he has scheduled as his assets, and 
which has been sold under the bankrupt law, but the 
bankrupt still lives upon the farm because the purchaser 
has not y et taken possession of itî Has the farmer a légal 
title to the farm? Does it belong to him? Certainly not! 
Just such a right and title did Uriah hâve to Bathsheba, 
and so was she his wife. 

What the Bible tells us is: David saw a beautiful 
woman; he inquired if she was the wife of some man, or 
was yet unmarried. He was told or found out that she 
was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, or bankrupt, of whose 
estate, including his body, he (David) as king, was the 
chief or only assignée. He, the refore, without fear or 
shame, forthwith sent and brought lier to him, because 
Uriah's title w^as vested in him, David. And she was to 
David and to any one else as if she had not been married 
at ail. And the killing of Uriah was the same as the 
hanging of the man who had escaped through the neglect 
of the predecessor of the sherifF who did hang him by 
virtue of an order of the court which the sherifF found in 
his office. 

The only thing David may be or was guilty of is, the 
question, whether he had done ail that he did with a mo- 
tiv^e of performing his officiai duty a» assignée, or did he 
do iL ail w^ith a motive of fulfilling tlie longing of his 
heari;? The circumstances plainly show that the latter was 
liia motive; and as the motives of man's heart are some- 
tning that no one else but God can know, he therefore 
*' sinned " only against God, as he (David) says, and as the 
Bible tells us: " The secret things belong to the Lord 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 265 

" our God; but those things which are revealed belong 
" unto us and unto our children forever." Deut., chapter 
29, verse 29. 

The authors of the Bible knew there was no crime of 
adultery nor murder in the case, and the question of puri- 
fication might very reasonably be asked; they hâve there- 
fore narrated the fact — he was with her, "for she was puri- 
fîed from her uncleanHness." 

" Nations, like itidividuals, hâve their periods of youth, 
" of manhood and of decay. ReHgions are the same," says 
Mr. IngersoU in his book called "The Gods." " The same. 
" inexorable destiny awaits them ail. The gods created by 
" the nations must perish with their creators. They were 
" created by men, and like men they must pass away. 
" The deities of one âge are the by-words of the next. 
*' The religion of our day and country is no more exempt 
" from the sneers of the future than the others hâve been." 
Mr. IngersoU then recites the différent deities and religions 
of the différent nations that hâve existed to the présent 
time. He commences w^ith Bramah of India, mentions Isis 
and Osiris of Egypt, Zeus of Greece, Jove of Rome; and 
asks who will be the successor of Christ, who now sits on 
the old throne? 

In answer to the above query, we ask Mr. IngersoU: 
Why did he not include the Deity of Israël among the 
rest? Is it simply because he could not say ot the Israélites 
that they are extinct and hâve decayed, as the nations he 
names; because Israël, instead of being extinct, as the rest 
of the nations, and their posterity, if they hâve any, sneer- 
ing and laughing at the folly of their ancestors for wor- 
shiping such objects as deities, — Israël is more numerous 



266 



now than it ever was, and instead of being a nation tor 
itself in some local part of the world, bas become, and for 
centuries long bas been, as it is now, the nation of the 
world! And instead ot laughing and sneering at the re- 
ligions folly of their ancestors, as ail nations do, Israël has 
made the w^hole civilized world believe in and worship the 
One, and the only One God of Israël! And as the religions 
teacher of the world, it became necessary for Israël to live 
among ail the nations that are upon the face of the earth, 
to speak their languages, endure their climes, and sufFer 
from each and every one of them. If thèse visible and 
undeniable facts are the cause and reason why Mr. Inger- 
soU has not named Israël and the God of Israël among the 
nations and their deities which he has named, then bis 
whole argument is not worth the ink that it took to print 
it! Because the world knows and has during the last ten 
centuries known and understood the religions folly of their 
ancestors, and is now, as it has been during the last ten 
centuries, anxious to forget it. Aiud if he did not see thèse 
facts and the position of Israël and the God of Israël at 
the présent time, then we say, he who cannot see and un- 
derstjind the présent is a very unfit person to judge the 
past and foretell the future! 

Is the science of astronomy so perfect and powerful 
now that an éclipse or any other visible and unnatural or 
unusual phenomenon can be loretold 2,400 years before it 
appears? Is there or was there any power, besides the 
power of Divine Inspiration, by which Isaiah could bave 
written the four chapters from the fortieth to the forty- 
fifth, to say nothing of the rest? How, if not through 
Divine Inspiration, could he, as he did, know and foretell 
2,400 years ago that Israël would to-day be the undisputed 
and indisputable witness to, for, and before the whole 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 267 

world that there is no other God than the God of Israël? 
" Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant and Israël whom 
" I hâve chosen; thus saith the Lord God that made thee 
" and formed thee: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, and 
" thou Jeshurum, whom I hâve chosen. For I will pour 
" water (knowledge) upon him that is thirsty and floods 
" upon the dry ground; I w^ill pour my spirit upon thy 
t* seed and my blessing upon thine ofFspring; and they 
** shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the 
" water-courses. One shall say I am the Lord's; and an- 
** other shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and an- 
" other shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord and 
" surname himself by the name of Israël. Thus saith the 
" Lord, the King of Israël, and his Redeemer the Lord of 
" Hosts: I am the First; I am the Last; and besides Me 
'* there is no God! And who, as I, shall call and déclare 
" it, and set it in order for me, since I hâve appointed the 
" ancient people? And the things that are coming and 
" shall come, let them déclare unto them. Fear ye not, 
" neither be afraid ; hâve I not told thee from the time, 
" and hâve declared it? Ye are even my w^itnesses. Is 
" there a God besides me? (And in answ^er to the last 
" question Israël says:) There is no God; I knovs^ not 
" any " ! 

Let Mr. Ingersoll stop talking and making himsei. 
the deity of infidelity,at whom future générations will sneer 
and laugh and be anxious to forget, as the présent gén- 
ération is and does of Isis and Osiris and the thousands of 
other bulls, dogs and cats to which the Egyptians paid 
their dévotions; or as they sneer and laugh at the Roman 
Jova and the thousands of other detestations to which Rome 
paid and made the world pay its dévotions; ail of which 
hâve crumbled away with their time and nation. 



268 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



Let him, we say, stop talking and making himself the 
talking deity of those who worship him, because they know 
not better; and let him read the history of the world since 
four thousand years, and not touch the Bible at ail; and in 
the history of the world he will fînd that ail thèse deities 
he speaks of, and thousands of others, hâve existed, changed 
and decayed, as man does, except the God of Israël, who 
was only known to and served by Israël for about two 
thousand years, or up to the time when Israël ceased to 
be a local ^nation and became the nation of the world, 
which took place about two thousand years ago. No 
new deities came into existence during that time; and those 
that were from before that time ail decayed during that 
time, and Christianity took their devotees and worshipers 
and brought them to the God of Israël, of whom the 
world obtains more knowledge and understanding each and 
every day, and whom it worships and serves more devotedly, 
more knowingly, and more willingly each and every day! 
And after fînding out ail this from the history of the world, 
let him examine or study ail the science of which he talks 
so much but knows so little, and see if he can find a power 
besides the power of Divine Inspiration by which Isaiah, 
or whoever the writer of the book of Isaiah was — for the 
world does not care now who the writer of the book in 
question was, but only cares and it is of great interest for 
the world to know, how the writer, whoever he was, did 
know to foretell things exactly as they are to-day, if it 
was not by the power of Divine Inspiration. Neither does 
it make any différence to the world nor to us what power 
Mr. Ingersoll will or can ascribe to the writer in ques- 
tion. He will find himself both compelled and willing to 
proclaim that the time is not very far in the future 
when " From one Sabbath to another shall ail flesh 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUIIE. 269 

corne to worship before me," the one and the only God 
of Israël, "saith the Lord God," as Isaiah has foretold 
in the last chapter of his book. And he can gain some 
information — nay, more information, and come to the same 
forcible and wiUing conclusion by reading the Bible 
without any commentaries, or what commentators since 
the time of St. Jérôme to the présent day hâve said 
about the Bible, and criticise the Bible according to the 
science that every man is supposed to hâve and use, ex- 
cept when he comes to read or study the Bible, which 
science is commonly called " common sensé." The reason 
why we recommend this w^ay of reading and studying is, 
because they who study or simply read the Bible with ail 
the commentaries thereon go to extrêmes. One portion of 
them believe everything, though they understand nothing, 
because they make everything figurative or spiritual; under 
the former they can figure any biblical passage for what- 
ever it suits them best or occasion requires; and unuer the 
latter idea they can make the Bible say whatever they 
like, because neither they nor any other human being can 
understand spiritual or infinité matter; and to this class be- 
long a part of the ministers of religion, who can see no 
biblical subject by the reflected light of science, and are 
ready and wiiling to swap the Bible for science and preach 
and teach a scientific religion. And the part of the biblical 
readers who believe nothing of what they read, because 
they understand nothing of it, is composed of the ministers 
and devotees of infidelity, who also substitute science for 
the Bible. Thus they demonstrate the truth of the adage, 
" Two extrêmes meet.' 

The common sensé a man must hâve and use m read- 
ing the Bible is: He must first convince himself that there 
is a God, or a Suprême Power that rules the universe, of 



z^Q A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

which man can convince himself through conimon sensé, 
in the same manner as Abraham did. And common 
sensé will also tell him and make him believe that the 
Bible is true, if he will consider and contemplate upon the 
fact of the indestructibility of the nation who brought the 
Bible into the world, and who hâve lived and do live ac- 
cording to the Bible. And when it cornes to reading the 
Bible let him say to himself: *' If there is a God, which 
" common sensé tells me, and if the Bible is a book that 
" God gave to man, that the latter may know how 
" to act and live, then that Omnipotent God must hâve given 
" man power to understand what He wants man to do. 
" Hence I, as man, must and will understand what the 
" Bible says to me and to every man." 

And we are sure that not only will man understand, 
believe and love the Bible, but he will also iînd out that 
the light of science is to the Bible what the lamp-light was 
to the diamond lost in the dark room, which is spoken of 
in this chapter. And he will hâve no more, and probably 
less, respect for those religious ministers of the présent 
time who are ready to change the Bible for science, than 
he has or can hâve for the ministers who hâve said that 
the study of science is prohibited by the Bible. 

The whole subject will '6e more thoroughly demonstrated 
when we shall reach in history the period at which Christ- 
ianity or Christ came into the world. At présent we are 
at the time of the building of the Tabernacle ^by Moses, 
which is the subject of the next chapter. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2f. 



CHAPTER XXV. 

THE TABENACLE THAT MOSES BUILT. 

" And let them make me a sanctuary , that I may dwell 
" among them." Exodus, 25:8. 

The idea of building a house for God to dwell in is 
indeed contrary to and inconsistent with the idea that men 
hâve of God and the belief they hâve in Him, as well as 
with what God Himself says: 

" Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and 
*' the earth is my footstool. Where is the house that ye 
" build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?" 
Isaiah, chap. 66. 

But does the phrase, "and I w^ill dwell among them," 
strictly convey the idea of dwelling in the sanctuary? Ex- 
odus, 25:9, says: 

" According to ail that I shew thee, after the pattern 
" of the Tabernacle and the pattern of ail the instruments 
" thereof, even so shall ye make it." 

The last verse shows plainly that Moses was shown a 
pattern of the Tabernacle and of ail the instruments that 
were to be in it, as well as of the candlestick, as the last 
verse of the same chapter says: 



272 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" And look that thou make them after their pattern, 
" which was shown thee in the mount." 

It may therefore be proper to ask: If Moses saw a 
pattern of the Tabernacle and of everything that was to 
be in the Tabernacle, what need was there to describe how 
and of what material each and everything was to be made? 
It is a great deal easier to make a diagram and a descrip- 
tion of a thing or a building, when the thing or building 
is seen, than it is from what we hear spoken of the thing 
or building. Hence, if Moses did see a tabernacle or a 
pattern of one, he must hâve seen that part of it was made 
of boards, and part of it was made of curtains, and counted 
how many curtains there were, their length and breadth, 
as well as the material of which they were made, and their 
color; and the same with the boards, the sockets, and with 
everything that wns subsequently made in and for the 
Tabernacle. If he saw ail thèse things, as it says he did, 
why did he not write out a description, or why did he not 
make a diagram of ail thèse from what he saw, which 
would hâve been much easier for the workingmen to imi- 
tate from, and for Moses to convey an idea to the work- 
ingmen of what he wanted them to make, than it was for 
him to convey and for them to conceive from what he 
(Moses) was told about it, from which he did convey his 
ideas to the workingmen, but which it seems were indeed 
very hard for the workingmen to understand, for it be- 
came necessary that they should be fîlled with the Spirit 
of God in order to do their work in accordance with the 
design of Moses, or with what he saw on the mount, as 
we are told in Exodus, chap. 31: 

" And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I hâve called 
" by name Bezaleel the son of Uri. * * * * And 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



" I have fîlled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, 
" and in understanding, and in kuowledge, and in ail manner 
" of workmanship." 

If Moses had taken a diagram of what he saw, there 
could have been no need of fîlling the workmen with the 
Spirit of God. But what did Moses see? What was 
shown to him on the mount? Could he, or any man, 
or ail men together, have taken a diagram of what w^as 
shown unto Moses at the time and place in question? 
If any man could Lave done what Moses did not do, 
then any man could or can make a perfect diagram of 
the whole universe, including the difierent planets, and 
in such a way that every workmen could readily un- 
derstand and make it, so that any man should be able 
to perceive, from what the w^orkman had made, the four 
éléments, Earth, Air, Pire and Water, the materials of 
which everything in the universe itself are made, or 
contain in themselves; and above ail, the Fifth Thing, 
that holds the éléments, usually destructive to each other, 
together in peaceable harmony! For nothing else than 
the whole structure of the universe and the éléments of 
which it is composed, and the power that holds it to- 
gether, was what was shown unto Moses at the time 
and place in question! Hence Moses did not take or 
make a diagram of what he saw; and that is what no 
human being ever was, is, and probably never will be 
able to do. 

And as God dwells in the whole universe, and the 
Tabernacle was or was to be a typical universe, it was 
the typical dwelling-place of God. But the Bible or the 
8th verse of the 25th chapter of Exodus, does not 
strictly say that God woukl dwell in the sanctuary that 



19 



274 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

He told Moses to build. It says: 

" Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell 
" among (or in) them." 

If it had been the intention of the writer of that 
passage of the Bible to strictly convey the idea that God 
would dwell in the sanctuary, he would hâve said "that 
I may dwell in it," and not among or in them. The 
purpose of the Tabernacle was not that God might 
dwell in it, but through the knowledge of the universe, 
of which the Tabernacle was to be and was a type, by 
which men could and hâve gained a knowledge of the 
working of the universe, God might, as He does, dwell 
in them, or among them (as the English version of 
that text reads). He who actually does obtain some 
knowledge by study and observation of the universe, 
even of the least thing that is in it, knows there is a 
God, and God dwells in him and among those with 
whom the observer and contemplator of the wonderful 
construction of the universe dwells. Moses saw and knew 
the wonderful construction of the universe. Bezaleel and 
the rest who worked at the Tabernacle were fîUed with 
the same spirit; consequently God dwelt in them and 
among the Israélites with whom dwelt Moses, Bezaleel 
and the other workmen, and others who had studied and 
understood the design of the Tabernacle and had obtained 
a glimpse of the structure of the universe. 

Aristotle and Plato knew nothing of the Bible nor 
of the Tabernacle, but they studied and tested the w^ork- 
]ng of the universe. What little they knew of it was 
not from what others had said about it, but from what 
they had observed and ascertained. Hence they beiieved, 
even at the risk of their lives, in an Omnipotent Power, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 275 

and in life after deathî And if they had had the aid 
and teachings of the Bible, the world might hâve been 
saved from passing through the dark âges which came 
between them and us, for they probably would hâve 
enhghtened the world in their time! 

God dwells in those v^ho know something of Him. 
To know Him is the same as knowing a painter from 
the paintings he has made. The painter is invisible to 
us, because he is dead; nevertheless we love and admire 
him in the feelings of our hearts, and honor him in the 
contemplation of our thoughts, and consequently his spirit 
may be said to dwell within us. Therefore the authors 
of the Bible direct our attention to the picture of the 
universe which we behold, that we may contemplate it, 
and that it may lead us to think of and admire the 
Designer and Painter thereof. 

It is certainly impossible for a man to explain how 
and in what a certain thing resembles another, without 
knowing and being familiar with the other thing of 
which the certain thing is or has a resemblance. Hence, 
to explain how the Tabernacle was a pattern of the 
universe we, or whoever would undertake to do so, could 
not succeed unless we were fully aware of the structure 
of the universe, of which, we are sorry to say, we hâve 
but little if any know^ledge; and what we do know of 
it is not of a démonstrative quality of knowledge, or such 
as, if some one would dispute what we say of the uni- 
verse, we could demonstrate it to be as we say it is. 
Hence we will simply say that the fine linen, the blue, 
the purple and the scarlet, of which the curtains of the 
Tabernacle were made, represented the earth, the air, 
the fire and the water, which comprise everything that 



276 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



is in the universe. And the Cherubim, and the cunning 
work that was worked in the curtains, were to represent 
the invisible Power by which thèse éléments, usually 
destructive to one another, are kept in perfect harmony 
by the Invisible Power that made everything that is in 
the universe. And the fact that the curtains were niade 
of diflferent materials and of différent colors, and the fîfty 
loops that each and every curtain had were ail made of 
blue, which is a sky color, represented ail that man's 
mind is capable of conceiving and representing to himself 
of heaven. And the joining of the curtains one to an- 
other with golden taches or hooks, instead of tying one 
to another w^ith any part of the same materials of which 
the curtains were made, — which would hâve been easier 
and brought them doser one to another, for the loops 
were fastened to the very edge of each curtain and must 
hâve projected over it; and if each loop extended but 
one half of an inch outside the edge of the curtain, and say 
the hook or tach was also no more than one half an 
inch long, then the two loops and the hook that held 
the two loops together left an open space of one and 
one-half inches between every two curtains. Hence we 
sav, if strings had been sewed on to each curtain and tied 
tosrether the curtains could hâve been brought close one to 
another, if that had been the desired purpose of the loops 
and taches. But that was not the désire. The purpose of 
the loops and taches was to represent that neither the 
planets or créatures in the universe, nor the éléments that 
are in each and every one of them, are kept together by 
anything that is of them or in them. The taches were 
made of gokl; and gold is not linen, nor blue wool, nor 
purple, nor scarlet. The golden taches represented what 
the Bible, nature and science teach of the créative God 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUKE, 277 

Power, that holds the planets and eve^ything that consti- 
tutes the universe; and He who holds them together and 
controls them is not a part of them nor anything that is 
in them. 

The same is true with regard to the boards of the 
Tabernacle, and the sockets which held the boards togethr. 
Two sockets held one board together. " Two sockets un- 
der one board, for his two tenons." And the boards were 
held together by golden rings and five gold-covered bars; 
but there was but one that ran from end to end — repre- 
senting the one Power that holds the whole universe to- 
gether! 

If any of our readers will take the trouble to examine 
that part of the Bible which describes the building of the 
Tabernacle, he will find that the boards of the Tabernacle 
were forty-eight in number, and twenty-one curtains on 
the outside of the Tabernacle, ten that were joined with 
golden taches and eleven that were joined with copper 
taches; and the vail that separated the place where the ark 
was from the rest of the Tabernacle, which place was 
'called Most Holy, or Holy of Holiness; and the hangings 
for the door of the tent; and the curtain before the mercy- 
seat, or ark. He (the reader) will find that they were 
seventy-two in ail, exclusive of anything that was in the 
court of the Tabernacle. Divide thèse seventy-two parts 
of the Tabernacle by four, or by the four streams into 
which the river that came out of the Garden of Eden is 
said to hâve divided itself. The quotient of seventy-two 
divided by four is eighteen. And this is how Maimonide, 
without the aid of the télescope, could know, seven hun- 
dred years ago, that the solar System of planets can consist 
of no less than eighteen planets, besides their moons and 



278 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

stars — the latter beinor represented by the utensils of the 
Tabernacle. And if the court of the Tabernacle is to be 
considered as part of the Tabernacle, then there are strong 
reasons to say and believe that the system of planets here- 
tofore named consists of more than eighteen, of which six 
were known to the world about one hundred years ago, 
and about eleven are known now. As Maimonide says, 
there are strong reasons for believing there are more than 
eighteen. 

And if we should be asked, " Are there no more than 
four Systems of planets in the universe?" our answer will 
be: The other Systems that are or may be in the universe 
are subject to and governed by thèse four, the same as ail 
the streams of man's thoughts are of and governed by the 
four streams into w^hich the stream of thoughts that came 
out of the Garden of Eden, the soûl, which existed before 
time (Eden) divides or divided itself. 

Greater minds and better pens than ours hâve at- 
tempted to describe and fully explain the Tabernacle and 
what it did represent; some of whom hâve failed, while 
some bave succeeded, but refused to say more than they 
did, and did not think they had a propcr right to go 
farther than they went. None of them went as far or 
said as much as Maimonide did. And he cautions and 
asks those who may understand what he meant to be 
sparing and careful in what they say about it; and we 
think we cannot and ought not to proceed further with 
that subject. 

We will therefore stop our inquiries about the Tab- 
ernacle itself, or how it was built, or why it was built 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 279 

as it was, and why the several articles in it were made 
as they were; and will direct our inquiries unto the 
purpose for which the Tabernacle was built. Was it 
built for no other or greater purpose than to sacrifice 
animais m it? This will be the subject of our next 
chapter. 



28o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXVI. 



THE PURPOSE OF THE TABERNACLE AND OF THE ANIMAL 

SACRIFICES. 

• 

Would it not greatly surprise an architect if a man 
would come to hiin and tell him: I want you to su- 
perintend the building of a house for me; and I want 
you to build it for me according to the pattern of the 
house you hâve seen. And instead of explaining to the 
architect what house he refers to, that the latter has 
seen, or of what materials he intends to build his house, 
or of what dimensions it was to be, the man would say: 
And I want you to make a box; telling the sort of 
lumber to be used; the size thereof; with what it musl 
be lined inside, and with what it must be covered or how 
it must be painted on the outside, and what ornaments 
it shall bave on the outside; and it was to be carried 
from place to place; and then tell the architect what he 
intended to keep in that box. And before saying any- 
thing more about the house of which he began to speak, 
he would continue: And you shall make me a certain 
seat, describing the materials of which the seat was to 
be made and the size thereof; also how the seat was to 
be engraved; and would at the same time tell the archi- 
tect that he wanted that chair to sit upon when he 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2S1 

wished to speak with the architect. And before he told 
him another word of the house, he would tell him to 
make him a table, and would describe the table, of what 
it was to be made, its size, its feet, its ornaments, how 
it should be carried from place to place; and tell him 
of certain dishes, consisting of spoons and bowls, that 
he desired should lie on the table; and not only thèse, 
but would tell him of a certain sort of bread which he 
(the man) desired should always be upon the table. And 
before again mentioning the house he would say to the 
architect: And I want y ou to make me a candlestick, de- 
scribing the number of branches, its materials, its weight 
and its ornaments; as well as the snufF-dishes and certain 
tongs, ail to be of the same materials. How great an idea 
could the architect by that time or from ail thèse hâve about 
the house? Or what idea could he form about the house? 
The only idea he could possibly form, if any, would be that 
the man wanted to build a house for no other purpose 
than to keep that box, table and candlestick. 

This is the manner in which, as the Bible tells us 
God told Moses of the building of the Tabernacle. See 
Exodus, 25th chapter: 

" And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the Is- 
** raelites, that they bring me an offering." 

It then goes on and tells what the ofFering should con- 
sist of, which is contumed to the end of the seventh verse, 
and the next verse reads: 

" And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell 
*' among them. According to ail that I shew thee, after 
" the (appearance, Hebrew) pattern (Eng.) of the (dwelling, 



282 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

" Heb.) tabernacle (Eng.), and the appearance of ail its 
" utensils," (Eng. instruments.) 

And then from verse loth to 23d it describes the ark; 
then the table; and then to the end of the chapter it de- 
scribes the candlestick. And not until the commence- 
ment of the subséquent chapter is a word said about the 
Tabernacle itself. 

The world has been habituated to believe that the 
sacrifices of animais were the purpose for which the Tab- 
ernacle was built. The érection of the Tabernacle was to 
dissuade men from their habituai belief in, and serving the 
Sun, moon and stars, to whom they used to sacrifice their 
children, and to wean them to a knowledge of, and belief 
in the One and Only God. The ark was the place where 
the tables of stone were kept, which the Bible very prop» 
erly calls " the testimony," for it was an évidence of God 
to them that were at Sinai. That was kept in the most 
holy place, and no one could go in there; and that was to 
represent that the Most Holy One cannot be seen by any 
human being while he is on earth! 

The table and the shew-bread, which were the next 
things described, were to show man and remind him that 
God is the One who gives bread to man, and everything 
that he needs. The nations who had served the sun and 
planets had been made to believe by their priests that the 
sun, moon, and the other planets were the ones to whom 
man owed for ail he received. They had demonstrated 
their theory by the fact that the eorth cannot produce with- 
out the sun. They used to tell them that the déserts were 
once the most productive countries, and were inhabited; 
but the inhabitants thereof had not believed in nor served 
the sun, and hence the sun had destroyed their produc- 



J 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 3S3 

tions and made them the déserts they are. And they told 
men that if they did not serve the sun the latter would 
destroy the whole earth, and make it as it made the désert, 
wherein man cannot live at ail. 

The Israélites had lived among thèse nations and con- 
sequently must hâve had the same belief to a certain ex- 
tent; and to convince them of the falsity of such a belief, 
God led them through and kept them in the désert forty 
years; and there, right in the place that made men fear and 
serve the sun, God gave to man His laws, which are de- 
structive to the belief and worship of the sun (the greatest 
deity) and ail the other heavenly and earthly bodies or 
créatures (that w^ere the smaller deities) which the world 
served and worshiped at that time. AU this was done for 
no other purpose than to convince the Israélites and the 
people of that time of their error, and bring them to the 
belief in and know^ledge of the One God, in v^hom the civil- 
ized part of the human race now believe, and are finding 
out how to serve Him. Let us now^ return to our sub- 
ject. 

[Note. — Maimonide in his " Moureh Nebuchim," Part 
3d, chap. 39-30, tells of several historical and religious 
books of the Chaldees that were translated into the Ara- 
bian language and w^ere in existence in his time; and he 
names several of the early Grecian writers who speak of 
thèse books and refer to them as authority. And he 
(Maimonide) gives a brief account of what the priests used 
to say to the people, and how they used to beguile and 
terrify them into a belief in and worship of the heav- 
enly bodies. The history commenced from Adam, and 
spoke of Noah as a wicked man because he did not serve 
the sun nor the other planets; and what we say hère is 
from Moureh Nebuchim.] 



2Sà A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The candelstick représentée! not only the sun and the 
constellation Orion, but the entire orbit in which the sun 
moves. And hère Moses was told, " look on them, after 
" THEIR pattern (the heavenly bodies that are in the 
" sun's orbit), which was shown thee in the mount." Then 
it begins to speak of the Tabernacle itself; and the altar, 
which was the représentative of the earth, was not spoken 
of until the Tabernacle, the représentative of the uni verse, 
was fully described. 

The reader will perceive that the order of the con- 
struction of the Tabernacle and its utensils corresponds 
with the order of the biblical account of the création. "In 
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." 
The sanctuary where God dwells is not described, nor how 
it was made. That is the same, " Make me a sanctuary, 
that I may dwell among tnem," without describing how 
and of what the sanctuary was to be made. " And God 
said, Let there be light," knowledge, that man shall know 
and understand, which w^as personified in the ten com- 
mandments, that were first given orally. Then the firma- 
ment was made, that God called Heaven, wherein the 
infinité light and knowledge dwells, and which is repre- 
sented by the Ark, wherein "the testimony," the light, the 
knowledge of God, was to be placed and dwell! 

Then the " waters were gathered together and the 
dry land," that conta' ••s the food that man needs, and was 
represented in the Tabernacle by the " table" and " shew- 
bread," which was also the third thing in the order of the 
biblical account of the construction of the Tabernacle, the 
same as the appearance of the earth was on the third day. 
And just as the table had no bread on it when it was first 
made, so did the earth hâve no productions in itself nor 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 285 

on itself before its Maker placée! in it the productive power 
fhat the earth now has and which is subject to the sun. 
Hence the earth did no more produce before the sun had 
its full power and everything was in full force and run- 
ning order, or what is now called évolution, than the table 
had bread on it before it was put there. 

The candlestick is the fourth thing in the descriptive 
account of the Tabernacle- And that was to represent the 
sun and its orbit. That luminary was represented by the 
middle light. One under every two branches, that took 
three knops for the six side branches; and the fourth knop, 
that was on the shaft or under the middle lamp, was the 
représentative of the moon. And the side lights on each side 
of the shaft, that were to give their lights against the middle 
light, was to show that the sun is not the first cause of light, 
but draws its light from some other source or sources, vvho 
are also bending to the will of the Great Light, the One 
God of Israël, the Great and Wonderful Creator of every- 
thing, who placed the sun and moon and "stars also" in 
the firmament of Heaven on the fourth day of création, the 
same as He ordered the candlestick, the représentative of 
the sun, moon and stars, the fourth thing when He ordered 
the building of the Tabernacle, that was to represent 
the universe, and to enlighten man about the Creator 
thereof ! 

The altar was the représentative of the earth, as it 
now is, and as it has been since man has been on it; which 
is, that out of the earth or through it man receives what 
he needs; and at last man himself must return to the earth, 
the same as ail the fat had to be burned and ail blood 
sprinkled upon the altar. And thereforc an altar was or- 
dained to be made of earth; and if of stones, they (the 



286 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

stones) had to be in their natural state, and not eut or 
hewed stones. 

If the civilized nations of the world at the présent 
time coiild hâve a history of ail the nations that hâve 
existed in the world during the time of which the Bible 
speaks; and if that history contained a fuU account of ail 
the civil and religions laws of ail nations that hâve existed 
during the time in question, the same as the Bible gives of 
the nation w^hose history it is; and it men were as familiar 
with that history as they are with the Bible; and if that 
history extended down to the time when Cortez landed in 
Mexico, and give an accurate account of the human sacri- 
fices there, and the time v^hen and how they w^ere to be 
sacrificed; telling how many maies and how many females, 
aud how many full-aged maies and females had to be and 
were sacrificed by the priests of the sun and other planets as 
well as to animais, as the Bible tells of the animal sacrifices? 
and described how the poor helpless victim was to be and 
was placed on the sacrificing stone, with a stone collar on 
his neck (the relies of which are found in our land),* and 
five priests holding him, one by each hand and leg and 
one by the head, while the high priest eut the breast open 
and took out the heart and besmeared the deity or its 
image; — if men could read and know ail this, what a relief 



*When Cortez landed the inhabitants thought he w^as 
their long-lost deity and prince, Quetzalcoatl, who left them 
centuries before and promised to return. Hence they killed 
a man and sprinkled the blood upon the conqueror Cortez 
and his companions. See " Antinquity of North America," 
and North American Review. We cannot give date nor 
page — we speak from memory. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURK. 2S7 

it would be to their feelings to read the Bible! With 
what dévotion they would contemplate the mercies of God, 
and thank Him for the love that He hath shown in w^ean- 
ing the human race from their brutality by substituting the 
animal sacrifice for the human, w^hich was to prevail until 
man should learn that God desires no other sacrifice of 
him than the feelings of his heart and understanding of his 
mind, to feel and know that there is a God, and that He 
is just and loves His créatures, and that man, vv^ho was 
created in His image, shall be and do the same! 

We will now direct our inquiries into the biblical law 
appertaining to sacrifices; but to do so it will become 
necessary for us to refer to some passages of the Bible 
that Prof. W. Robertson Smith made use of in his late 
twelve lectures, in which he raises the Septuagint copy of 
the Bible that we now hâve to be of higher and better 
authority than the Hebrew Bible; and in thèse lectures 
and by this means he concludes that the Book of Deuter- 
onomy was unknown to the Jews in the time of the 
prophets Isaiah and Micab. And we wish to deal with 
him the same as we hâve dealt with other writers and 
speakers against the truth of the Bible, — that is, to show either 
their ignorance of the words they read and utter, or expose 
their private purpose and interest in explaining what they 
read in the manner and for the purpose they do. The 
Professor had lost his position as professor in a certain 
theological institution in Scotland; hence we cannot con- 
clude whether to ascribe his sayings and conclusions to a 
want of knowledge and proper understanding of the sub- 
jects he spoke of, or to the cause that made him speak 
and the purpose for which he spoke! But that is entirely 
immaterial to us. We bave only to inquire into the sub- 
ject of which he spoke, and into the conclusions he drew 



288 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS. 

therefrom. And as we are désirons to kill as many birds. 
as we can vvith one throw of the " Stone," and as the 
explanation of the biblical law about sacrifices is also a 
réfutation not only of what the Professor says about the 
Book of Deuteronomy, but removes the entire foundation 
upon which he has built his tvvelve lectures (with the ex- 
ception of what he built upon the Book of Samuel, which 
wiil be the subject of a subséquent chapter), we 
therefore think it is proper, as it is a saving- of time and 
space, to connect the twelve lectures to the explanation of 
the biblical sacrifices. 

In the eighth lecture, page 213, the Professor says: 

" So long as the old dispensatlon lasted, the law re- 

" mained an absolute standard. The Israélites had no 

" right to draw a distinction between the spirit and the 
" letter of the law." 

Mr. W. R. Smith, or Mr. Professor, on what évi- 
dence or proof hâve y ou made the above statement? We 
absolutely denv your assertion, that we hâve above copied, 
and we propose to, and will substantiate our déniai by the 
very évidence of Isaiah and Micah and of the books of 
Moses that we shall copy from your own book, and not 
from the Bible. But before we do this, we will first copy 
some more of what you say. On page 3i4, same lecture, 
you say : 

" The priest shall make atonement for him, and he 
"shall be forgiven." This is biblical, and you explain it 
thus: " To neglect thèse means of grâce is, according to 
" the Pentateuch, nothing less than the sin committed with 
" a high hand, for which there is no forgiveness." 

Professor Smith! Don't you know that each and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2S9' 

every nation has laws which define what act is a crime, 
what is a trespass, and what shall constitute other offenses? 
And the same laws provide a punishinent for each crime 
and offense. The punishment for some crimes is death, 
for others is imprisonment, and for others is but a fine. 
And every government provides officers who are r.o 
"exécute the huvs, to impose the punisiiment and collect 
tlie fines; and when the fine has been paid or the pun- 
ishment endured, the law reheves the transgressor from 
his transgression and the criminal from the crime he has 
committed. Would you, Mr. Professor Smith, say the 
people who constitute the civihzed nations of the world 
hâve no right to abstain from committing crimes? Or 
that the laws of the civilized nations of the v^^orld com-' 
pel the people who constitue those nations to commit 
the crimes for which the laws of the nations provide a 
punishment, and the same laws make it the imperative 
duty of the ofïicers to impose said punishments upon the 
transgressors of the law? If you do or would say so, 
then you simply are or v^ould bave to be answered by 
ridicule. And if you, Mr. Professor, do not and would 
not say so of ail the nations and of their laws, which 
your lectures suggest, then why do you say so of the laws 
of the Bible and of the nation governed by those laws, 
the Israélites? Don't you know enough, Mr. Smith, to 
know that your eighth lecture exposes you to ridicule, 
and suggests very good reasons why you lest your place 
at Aberdeen? 

The Professor copies from the first chapter of 
Isaiah, and begins from the iith verse, which we recopy 
h-^re : 

'' What are your many sacrifices to me? saith Jeho- 



20 



2^0 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

" vah; I delight not in the blood of bullocks and lambs 
" and he goats. When ye corne to see my face, who hath 
" asked this at your hands, to tread my courts? Bring no 
" more vain oblations. * * * My soûl hateth your new 
" moons and your feasts; they are a burden unto me; I am 
" weary to bear them." 

• 
He then quotes from Amos: 

" I hâte, I despise your feast days. And I will not 
" take pleasure in your solemn assemblies. Take away 
" from me the noise of thy songs, and let me not hear the 
" melody of thy viols. But let justice flow as v^ater, and 
" righteousness as a perennial stream»" 

In the two quotations that we hâve hère copied from 
the tenth lecture, and on page 287, we find several w^ords 
that do not agrée v^^ith the English version of the Bible 
now before us; neither do thèse v^ords agrée vvith the He- 
brew text. But as the words he uses answer the purpose 
best, and as we agrée with that part of the Professor's 
conclusion, that the sacrifices were not ordained to endure 
forever, but were ordained to continue for a certain time, 
or until they had accomplished a certain purpose, which 
was to wean the Israélites, and through them the human 
race, from serving planets and other créatures, and sacrific- 
ing even human beings to them (as we will hereinafter 
prove by the Bible itself); hence we will say nothing to 
the Professor for changing the words of the English ver- 
sion of the Bible and replacing them with scientific fancy 
words of his own, that are far from agreeing with the He- 
brew text. 

What we and every one who does or ever did under- 
stand or had any proper understanding of the Bible — and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 39I 

the Bible itself — do not agrée with the lecturer in, is his 
conclusion that the prophets whô spoke against sacrifices, 
(and that includes nearly every prophet whose writings we 
hâve in the Bible, incîuding the Psalmist too,) that none of 
them knew anything ot the Book of Deuteronomy ; and 
that if they had known of that Book they would not hâve 
dared to speak against the lav^, for the latter was held 
higher than the prophets. 

To say the prophe*^s did not know of the Book of 
Deuteronomy because they spoke against sacrifices, is as 
reasonable and logical as for one, on being told that an 
officer whose duty it is to enforce the laws, or a minister 
of religion, told those w^ho are suflfering because they hâve 
violated the laws that "the government is not pleased with 
*' nor does it désiré that they suflfer; ail the government 
" asks of them is to act righteously, deal fairly;" and he 
who heard it would say: " The officer (or the minister) 
" could not hâve been aware of the laws under which the 
" violators of the law were sufFering, or else the laws were 
" not yet in existence at the time he said so." Whatever 
can be said about one who would reason in that way must 
be said about the Professor. 

We certainly could not hâve thought to touch any- 
thing of 'the Professor's lectures, because they injure no 
one but himself, and say nothing against anything except 
their own deliverer; but as we agrée with a small portion 
of his conclusion, and it is consistent with our subject, we 
said whajt we did, and it is more than we intended to say 
about him. Consequently we will résume our subject. 

The BiblCj like ail légal ctatutes, defines what consti- 
tutes a crime, a trespass, or any offense against the laws 
which the législature has enacted. 



292 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The penalty, according to the biblical or heavenly 
statute, for the crimes of treason, murder, adultery and the 
like, was death. The punishment for minor trespasses 
against the government was ail the way from a handful of 
flour to an ox, and was regulated according to the wealth 
of the ofFender. For crimes that one citizen committed 
against the rights of another, the punishment was that the 
ofFender had to pay a fine to the government whose laws 
he had violated, and fullv remunerate him whose rior-hts he 
had invaded. 

And when a prophet or minister said the government 
(God) was net pleased with the multitude of fines that His 
subjects were paying to him; that the only thing that 
would please the government, or was or could be an honor 
to the government, was that His subjects should love Him. 
" The Lord their God and keep His statutes," the prophet 
or minister simply said what we find in the first verse of 
the util chapter of Deuteronomy and the I3th verse of 
the same chapter: 

"If y ou will hearken diligently unto my command- 
" ments, which I command you THIS DAY, to love the 
" Lord your God, and to serve him with ail your heart and 
" ail your soûl." (Not with ail your fines and sacrifices.) 
The words " which I command you this day" mean the 
time when Moses was with them, or when they were in 
the w^ilderness, and do not include the law of sacrifices. 
That law was not to come into force until they became 
settled in their land, and not betore God had chosen a 
place to cause His name to dwell therein, which was not 
done until the time of Solomon. 

" Now thèse are the commandments, the statutes and 
" the judgments which the Lord thy God commanded to- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 293 

" teach you, that you might do them IN THE LAND 
" WHITHER YOU GO TO POSSESS IT." 

Sacrifices are embraced in the law. Ail thèse may be 
germane to the real subject in question, but it is not the 
heart of the subject. The heart of the subject is the ques- 
tion which the soûl of each and every man asks: Is not 
God able and willing to atone for and expiate our sins, 
vvithout a sacrifice of any kind? And did He ordain the 
sacrifice to be brought or the fine paid because we hâve 
violated His will, or law, or hath He ordained it for the 
purpose that it shall teach us to obey and carry out His 
will? The Bible, history, and circunistances fuUy and plainly 
answer thèse questions and say that the sacrifices were 
only ordained to enable man to think of God and by 
degrees learn to knovv sometliing of God, love Him, and 
habituate himself to carry out the will of God. 

But to explain and understand what the Bible says, we 
must first know the composition of men, or the human 
race. The human fomily is composed of four species of 
men, which we hâve already designated when we were con- 
sidering the men who hâve existed from the time that man 
was first placed upon the earth until Noah, which we will 
hère briefly repeat. Man consists of, or is designated by 
the names of " Adam, Enos, Geber and Ish." The first 
(Adam) is a mère living pièce of clay, of which a man can 
be made. The second (Enos) is one who lias some feel- 
ings and thoughts of a man, but is yet very far from being a 
man. The third (Geber) is between Enos and the perfect 
man, 'Ish. And Ish, the perfect man, brought no sacrifice, 
paid no fine for violating the law. And he, the perfect 
man, Moses, who is called Ish, brought no sacrifice even 
when he did unintentionally violate the command of God. 



294 ^ COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The second verse of the second chapter of Leviticus 
reads thus: 

" It any man of you bring an ofFering unto the Lord, 
" ye shall bring your ofFering of the cattle, even of the 
" herd and of the flock. If it is a burnt sacrifice * * * 
'' he shall ofFer it of his own voluntary will at the door of 
" the tabernacle," (This does not show an imperative com- 
mand to bring sacrifices, as Mr. Smith said. 

The fîrst verse of the second chapter of the same book 
says thus: " And when any person or soûl" (in English 
mistranslated "any" person, from the word "nefFesh," the 
same word that the word "soûl" in the 2d verse of the 4th 
chapter, same book, is translated from,) "will ofFer a méat 
ofFering." In speaking of a sin ofFering, chajD. 4, verse 2, 
it says: " If a soûl shall sin through ignorance against the 
" commandments of the Lord." 

Chapter 5th, which speaks of trespass ofFerings, verse 
ist, reads thus: "And if a soûl sin, and hear the voice of 
swearing." * * * " If a soûl commit a trespass," verse 
15. * * * "And if a soûl sin, and commit any of those 
things which are forbidden," verse i7. 

The question is, why does it say "Man" when speak- 
ing of burnt ofFerings, and "Soûl" when it speaks of ail 
the rest of the sacrifices? And the word Man in the Eng- 
lish version of the Bible, in the place in question, is trans- 
lated from the Hebrew word "Adam," while each time that 
^vord occurs in the Book of Leviticus, with the exception of 
the one in question, and the word "man" in the second 
verse of the I3th chapter, — ail the rest are translated from 
the word " Ish," which means the highest degree of 
man ? 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 395 

The burned ofFering is the first one that is spoken of, 
and the whole of it was burned upon the altar; nothing 
was allowed to be eaten of it even by the priests. Hence 
it must hâve been the most holy sacrifice of ail. Why, 
then, is that holy sacrifice ascribed to Adam, who was the 
lowest degree of man, or no man at ail, but mère raw mate- 
rials for a man, and ail the rest of the sacrifices are as- 
cribed to or connected with the soûl? 

And the word "Man" in the 2d verse of the I3th chap- 
ter, w^hich is the first verse of the law of "leprosy," why is 
the same word Adam used there in that verse, and the 
word " Ish" ail through the rest of the same law, which 
takes up three chapters, or 149 verses of the Bible? 

Why is the first and most holy sacrifice and the first 
leprosy ascribed to the same degree of man, and not any of 
the rest of the sacrifices nor any of the rest of the leprosies? 

The answers to thèse questions are thèse: God does 
not now and never did désire sacrifices; ail that He desires 
is a true heart and a pure spirit! He can, does, and did 
always forgive sins without sacrifices. When King David 
sinned he brought no sacrifice that God might forgive his 
sin; neither did Moses or Aaron, because they were not and 
did not belong to that class of men who are designated by 
the noun "Adam." They belonged to those who are called 
" Ish," and they knew that sacrifices were only ordained for 
man during the time that it takes him to develop himself 
from the state of an "Adam" (man) to the degree of an 
"Ish;" to reach that position he must first reach and take 
the degree of Enos, and then the degree of Geber, before 
he can become an " Ish." 

The whole hum an race habituated itself to sacrifices 



296 A COLLECnON OF THOUGHTS, 

long before the law was given to the Israélites. Gain the 
son of Adam, Noah, Balaam, ail brought sacrifices. Who 
told them, who asked them to bring sacrifices? Man was 
Savage, and whatever his imagined deity was, he judged 
his deity by his own feeling and désire, which was, as to 
a certain extent it is now, to revenge himself iipon and 
kill his enemies. They (men) hâve served and worshiped 
everything of which men derived some benefit. The sun 
is the greatest benefactor to men, because without the sun 
the earth could not produce what men need to live upon; 
hence the sun was their greatest deity. Animais, such as 
the cow, ox, sheep or goat, are of benefit to men; they 
hâve therefore served thèse animais. And as the wild and 
ferocious beasts, sucli as the lion, the liger, the bear and 
the wolf, are at enmity with men, and destroy men as well 
as domestic animais, hence they used to sacrifice thèse wild 
and ferocious beasts to their deities, which satisfied their 
uatural enmity to the beasts, and they thought it pleased 
their deities as it pleased them. Women, while they 
were in their monthly issues, history tells us, were al- 
most considered as détestable beings; they could not and 
dared not go out in tiie street; no one dared to talk 
to them, nor they to any one, during the time in ques- 
tion; and if it came on her during the forepart of the 
first quarter of the fuU moon, she had to be secluded in 
her room by herself until the fuU moon appeared.* And 



*When Rachel had the images of her father and the 
iatter came to search the tent in which she was, and 
from wliich she did not go out, the only excuse she 
gave him for her remaining in the room was: " Let it 
" not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; 
" for the custom of women is upon me." 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 2,0*] 



if it came on her during the second quarter, or during 
the forepart of the second, she had to >-wait until the 
new moon. Hence they worshiped the moon, because the 
change of the moon reheved them. They also used to 
sacrifice to evil spirits. The word dcvil in the EngHsh version 
of the Bible, where it speaks of sacrificing to the devil — 
M^hich it does in several phices — is translated from the 
Hebrew word "Seerim," (Lev. 17:7, and in many other ^ 
places,) and means goats, which were the emblem of that 
invisible deity, — except what w^e see of him in those w^ho 
are in the shape of man. 

Thus the human race h as during tw^o thousand years 
liabituated itself to sacrifices, and established poly theism and 
polygamy as indispensable and natural necessities. 

How to wean ofF a nation from ail thèse, when ail 
the rest of the nations in the world are practicing it, and 
believe it is their religions duty to keep it and promul- 
gate it, and believe that every one who does not do so 
is irréligions, and he w^ho does or says anything against 
thèse practices is sacrilegious, is a question that can be 
asked, but never could and cannot now^ be answered. To 
say that God could change their habituai nature, is a 
thing w^hich no one dénies. That He has power to do; 
but He doth not change the laws of nature, which He 
«nacted at the time He created the world. He probably 
"doth not do it because He knoweth, and He only doth 
know, that it may not be right and proper to change it. 
And probably because if He would change His unchange- 
^ble laws for the sake of a nation, then probably the 
question would be, why doth He not change them for 
the sake of an individual? And if He had changed the 
laws of nature or the habit ot man then, it would be 



298 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

asked, why doth He not do it now? And probably it 
is because His laws are to convince man of Him, and 
if His laws would change it might probably lead man 
to believe that He is also subject to a change! 

And should we hère be told that He did do miracles, 
which are not in accordance with the laws of nature, 
we could only ask the reader to wait for our answer 
until we will come to speak of miracles. For the présent 
we see no answer to the questions which are so germane 
to the présent subject, except the remedy supplied by the 
laws of God that we fînd in the Bible, and which were 
enacted for the purpose of enabling man to elevate him- 
self from the Adam degree of man, who cares for nothing 
else and knows of nothing more than his body and what 
he thinks will be good for it, to the " Ish " degree of 
man, which is a position occupied by angels, and is one 
of the names (when it is used in the jDlural) by which 
angels are called. And the man Gabriel, and the man 
clothed in linen (Daniel, chapters 9 and 12. The words 
man there are translated from the Hebrew word "Ish.") 
And when man reaches to that position or to that degree, 
that is, he knows God, and ail that he needs to know 
of Him is that no mortal man can know or see 
Him; and that He gives Him (man) ail that he needs 
and bas; and dépend on Him, who will deal justly and 
righteously with man, and will provide for him according 
to the abundance of His own goodness and mercies, and 
love and serve Him for it with a loving heart. When 
man reaches that position then he will know, as they 
who did reach that position during the time when sacri- 
fices were ofFered and accepted knew, that God desires 
no sacrifices, and therefore brought none, except what 
they brought for the purpose of helping others to turn 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTUEE. 299 

their thoughts and feelings to God; as Samuel and others 
did. 

It is our désire to bring before and submit the ques- 
tion to each and every one of our readers, that he may 
draw his own conclusions and décide that question for 
himself; and for that purpose we will suppose there is a 
business carried on in a certain place, which employs the 
whole community of the place, say a thousand or more in 
number, whohave no other means of support except what 
they get for their labor and attention to that business, for 
which they are well paid, and receive other rémunérations 
besides. The proprietor of the business does not live in 
that place, and there is not one in the whole community 
who does or ever did know him. The entire business is 
and has been carried on by a chief agent, and sub-agents 
who are ail subordinate to the former, who does what he 
likes; and trom ail appearance, and according to the knowl- 
edge the community hâve of the business and ot him, there 
is nothing that can reasonably show that the chief agent 
has a superior over him, or lead them to suppose he is not 
the proprietor. 

What could be the success, if any, for one m an to 
come and try to make the whole community and laborers 
believe that he whom they think is the proprietor of the 
business, and whom they fear and respect, and up to whom 
they ail look, and who to ail appearance is their sole 
benefactor, was nothing more than an agent who 
was sent by the proprietor of the business, of 
whom no one in the community ever heard anything, for 
no other purpose except to benefit them? Would his 
chance of success be bettered if he (the man) would tell 
them that the proprietor is very much grieved to know 



A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



that they believe the agent to be real proprietor and their 
benefactor, and that he, the proprietor, will dismiss the 
whole of them because they pay their respects to the agent 
and his subordinates? 

And in answer to the reasonable questions: Where is 
the proprietor? Why does he not come himself? Why 
has he not shown himself to any one employed in the 
business since it was estabhshed? Tlie man would say: The 
proprietor is everywhere, but can nowhere be seen by any 
one employed in the business; and that he (the man) did 
not see him, but found it out in a vision; and the way the 
business \\^as carried on demonstrated to him beyond a 
doubt that the vision w^as true! Is there, or would there 
be, another chance for him to succeed, if ever, but to re- 
main among the community and treat the supposed pro- 
prietor as a mère employée, and pay his respect to the 
invisible proprietor, and even insuit the agent and his sub- 
ordinates whenever he could do so in the présence of the 
community, for the purpose of shovving them that the 
agent and ail his subordinates were powerless to punish 
him or dismiss him from the service, neither to withhold 
from him any of the benefîts which the rest of the com- 
munity of the place were receiving through the agent? 
And if the man would kill a few of the subordinate agents, 
and the supposed proprietor would let him go unpunished 
for ail thèse, would not ail thèse constitute some cause for 
the community to think there was some reason in what the 
man of the new ideas said? 

The reader will, ^ve believe, know that the earth is 
the place in the supposition, without our telling it to him, 
and the people who lived upon the earth before the flood 
w^ere the community, and Noah was the man. He told 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 30£ 

the commimity of his time, who looked upon the siin as 
the proprietor of the iiniverse and the real benefactor of 
men, and paid their greatest respect to it, and to every- 
thing that is of some benefit to men they paid their respect 
according to the benefits received therefrom, — Noah came 
and told them ail, and more than ail, that the man in the sup- 
position said. When he was building the ark he must 
bave told them that the proprietor of the business that is 
carried on upon the earth would bring a flood that would 
sweep them ail away, and they vs^ould be dismissed from 
the business of the earth, and their supposed proprietor, 
tiie sun, would not be able to save them. It came topass! 
Noah, his three sons, and their wives vvere saved. And 
to convince his own posterity, Noah began to kill off 
some of the subordinate agents, the clean animais which he 
saved in his ark. 

" And Noah built an altar unto the Lord, and took ot 
" every clean beast and ofFered BURNT ofFerings on the 



The clean beasts were the deities, the subordinate agents 
to whom men paid their respects: hence Noah, for the 
purpose of convincing his posterity of men's error, began 
to kill them ofF. He killed some of "every clean beast," 
to show that they were ail alike. And he built an " altar 
" (a foundation) unto the Lord." That was, indeed, the 
best time to lay a foundation for the spirit of man to 
rest and dépend upon the Lord. The phrase, "And the 
Lord smelled a sweet savor," means, when traced to its 
origin and purpose, the same as the words from which 
that phrase is translated are used in the Hebrew language; 
which w^e will in due time, before we finish our présent 
subject, trace up. 



302 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

That was the first altar (foimdation) that was built 
unto, or to, but it is most proper to say "for the Lord," 
because ail thèse and a good many more words are 
translated from the letter "L," which is, in the Hebrew 
language, used as a prefix to nouns, and désignâtes ail 
thèse and many more prépositions. 

And that was the first "E-L-Th," (pronounced Oulous,) 
burnt ofFerings for the Lord. (The ofFering that Gain 
brought was a "Minchoh," a présent.) 

And that was undoubtedly the best and most proper 
time to build the altar, or foundation, and ofFer "oulous," 
which means ascending. Man's mind ascended to his God. 
The "Th" or the "Soph" m Hebrew désignâtes the 
plural. At that time, after the flood, when the whole 
community, — who knew nothing of the real Proprietor, 
and whom the man Noah could not convince that there 
was any other proprietor than the chiet agent, the sun, — 
were ail dismissed from the service and removed from the 
place of business in question, and only Noah and his 
sons were left, that must hâve been the time, for there 
certainly cannot even be imagined a better time, to build 
an altar, the emblem of a foundation, for the future em- 
ployées in the business on earth, from whence their spirits, 
thoughts, and the feelings of their hearts shall "go up;" 
for which two w^ords there is no other word in the Hebrew 
language than the word "Ouloh," which is féminine, be- 
cause thèse nouns, spirit, thought, and feelings of the heart 
are classified or expressed in that gender. 

The phrase "smelled a sweet savor," in the English 
version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew words 
<'Rai-ch" — "Nch-ch," pronounced "Raiach," smell, and "Nee- 
chow-ach," savory. The first, Raiach, is derived from the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 303 



Word "Ruch," wind, spirit, soûl, breath, disposition and air; 
and inasmuch as the feeling or the sensitiveness which 
man receives through the power of smelling cornes to him 
through the air-drafts of the nose, consequently the same 
Word that désignâtes air was brought into use to designate 
smell also; and that sanie word is used in phrases wherc 
to substitute or translate it into the word smell would de- 
stroy the sensé of the whole sentence. Would it be proper 
or sensible to say : He tore the roj^es as easy as the smell 
of fîre would burn a string? A string cannot smell; and 
fire can be smelled at a distance ; but fire cannot burn a 
string from the distance at which it can be smelled. 

" And he brake the withes as a thread of tow is 
*' broken when it TOUCHETH the fire." Tudges, chap. 
16, verse 9. 

The word "toucheth" is there translated from the same 
word that the word smell is translated from. 

'' And shall make him of QUICK UNDERSTAND- 
*' IN G in the fear of the Lord." Isaiah, 11:3. 

The words "quick understanding" are there also trans- 
lated from the same Hebrew word that the word smell is 
translated from. 

And the word savory is translated from the same word 
that the name of Noah is derived from, "N-ch," pronouncd 
"Nach," rest, or comfort, or contentedness. The Hebrew 
Lexicon called "Outzar Hashroshim" (treasure of roots) 
says that the two words "Raiach Neechouach," from which 
the words "sweet savory smell" that are found in the Eng- 
lish Bible are translated, are expressions of love, hatred, 
acceptance, will, and the like. 



304 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

We believe that we hâve shown enough to convince 
the reader that the words "sweet savor, sweet smell, or 
savory smell," as used in connection with the sacrifices are 
mistranslated in part, and wholly misunderstood and mis- 
applied. It ought to be understood "a contentedness of the 
spirit" of him who sacrificed for or unto the Lord; and it 
ought to hâve been translated to convey that idea. And 
the only reason why it w^as not so translated vvas because 
tliey for w^honi the Bible was translated knew nothing 
about a spiritual God; they knew of and believed in per- 
sonal deities. Hence it w^as translated to correspond with 
their ideas that God smells and that He is pleased with 
sacrifices and the like of it. And that idea bas been forced 
upon the world by the fathers of the church until lately I 

It might be proper and désirable to explain the altar,, 
why it was to be made of carth or rough stones, and why 
it was forbidden to go "up on steps upon the altar." But 
to explain ail thèse, and everything that is said in the Bible 
about sacrifices, that alone would make a volume as big a& 
the "Collection of Thougbts;" and as we are only to make 
a key-hole into thèse things, and the space and time that 
we bave allowed for this purpose are already more than 
occupied, we are therefore necessitated to speak of the 
subject in gênerai terms, and not direct our inquiries into 
every spécial part thereof. 

Abraham, who lived together with Noah, in the same 
community, and became the successor to Noah's belief and 
knowledge of the "original proprietor of the business," the 
true and only God, he, Abraham, brought no sacrifice to 
nor "for the Lord," except the ram which he sacrificed as 
a substitute for bis son Isaac. And how and why the 
Lord (or the Alohim, Heb.) told him to sacrifice his son is 
a subject which we cannot leave uncovered. 



oïl KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 305 

Abraham was childless until he was about one hundred 
years old, and was, as it is natural to be, and as the Bible 
tells us he was, very desirous to hâve a child; conse- 
quently he must hâve had an indescrible feeling when he 
saw children being sacrifîced to the deities which he ab- 
horred, or tortured in fîre to please the objects of his 
detestation. It necessarily and naturally must hâve been a 
subject that seldom or never left the feelings of his heart 
and the thoughts of his mind! And he must hâve debated 
that subject with his opponents as often as Le debated with 
them about the question of the true God and as the subject of 
sacrifîcing children is capable of being successfully debated. 
He had loved God with his whole heart and served Him 
his lifetime. He would hâve sacnficed ail he had to serve 
God with. Next to God, he loved his son, that he begot 
when he was a hundred years old, and called him Isaac, 
because every one wondered that the BARREN Sarah 
begat a child after she became ninety years of âge. 

What must hâve been the feelings (M> Abraham when 
he saw a child sacrifîced after he , became the happy ana 
loving father of Isaac? Reader! It is casier for you to 
imagine the answer to this question than it is for us or 
for any one to state or express it! Is it not reasonable 
to suppose — nay, is it not natural, and is it not practical 
that what we see and what our hearts feel to awake 
the thoughts of our minds with greater rapidity than 
electricity? And do we not hâve visions in the night 
about the objects for which our hearts feel and our minds 
think, when something that we abhor and which is horrible 
is connected with it? 

Can any one find reason to substantiate what he says 
if he will say it is mère fancy, or si^eculation, or supposi- 



21 



306 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

tion, that when Abraham saw a child sacrificed to the 
deities which he abhorred, bis loving heart expanded itself, 
AND HIS MIND QUESTIONED HIM: "ABRA- 
« HAM, WHAT WOULDST THOU DO IF THE 
« GOD WHOM THOU LOVEST AND SERVEST 
" WOULD TELL THEE TO SACRIFICE THY 
" SON ISAAC TO HIM, as tbis cbild is sacrificed?" 

Is it not natural and practical for tbe mind to ask sucb 
a question under sucb circu instances? And it makes no 
différence wbat tbe fatberly feelings of Abrabam woukl or 
coukl bave been, as a true servant and lover of God be 
would and did say to bimself : If my God would tell me 
to do it, I would do it willingly. 

Sucb feelings, questions and answers are not readily 
obliterated from tbe mind, nor are they easily and quickl} 
removed from tbe beart. Tbey were in Abrabani's beart 
and in bis mind; tbey went witb bim to sleep at night; 
and tbe " Ho-alobim" told bim in a vision during tbe 
nigbt: " TAKE THY SON, THINE ONLY SON 
"ISAAC, WHOM TPJOU LOVEST." We say it vvas 
in tbe nigbt, because tbe next verse says : "And Abrabam 
" rose up early in tbe morning." 

And to wbat place was Abrabam told to take bis son? 
Wby, to tbe land of " MORIAH!,' But wbere is tbat 
land of " Moriab?" We don't find anytbing about sucb a 
land in bistory, nor in geograpby! We read of a moun- 
tani by that name, but we nowbere find anytbing tbat 
indicates a land by tbat name. We bave already seen that 
biblical nouns bave an instrinsic meaning; and tbe words 
are onl}^ used as nouns to belp build up tbe outward part 
of tbe sentence, or tbe allegorical part of the narrative, 
We will therefore analyze tbe word in question. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 307 

In the Hebrew language the word in question is 
pronounced "Mouree ioh;" and with the letter H, which 
indicates the definite article (the) prefixed to it, is pro- 
nounced "HA MOU REE IOH." The word "MOURO" 
in the Hebrew language désignâtes Fear; "MOUREH," 
a Teacher; "MOURONU," Our Teacher; and the "IOH" 
is a name of the Deity, as AUeluioh.* 

To translate the word "Moriah," in the phrase in 
question, it would read "Teacher God." In the Hebrew 
text of the Bible the noun land in the phrase we are 
considering is indefinite. The article "the" or the H is 
prefixed to the word "Moriah," and it is pronounced 
"Hamourioh." And to translate the whole phrase from 
the Hebrew into the English language, so as to bring 
out its intrinsic meaning, would be thus: 

" AND BRING HIM UP" ("Ouloh," bring up) 
« THERE, THE TEACHER OF GOD." 

And the words "GET THEE into the land," is 
not a usual expression. If it simply meant to go to a 
certain place, the usual and proper word "Go" would 
hâve been used, instead of "GET THEE," which are 
translated from the Hebrew words "Lech," go, "Lecho," 
to thee, or for thee, and which the ancient commentators 
hâve explained to mean " Go for thy sake." And it 
may be proper to ask, why did not God describe or 
tell the name of the mountain, as well as of the land, 
that is, if the word "Moriah" is the predicate of "the 
laKd?" 



*We use the letter O instead of A, because it is 
pronounced Q, nof AI. 



p8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



This question will solve itself when we direct our 
inquiries about the mountain "Moriah," of which we 
read in history, and which is the same that the Temple 
stood upon. Hence it was in the land that Abraham 
lived in, and only three days journey on foot from the 
mountain. He lived at that time and for a long time 
thereafter at Beer-Sheba. And the reason why the name 
of the mountain was not then told to Abraham was 
because the teachings of God by the seed of Abraham 
did not corne out from the top of that mountain until a 
long time after that. " For out of Zion shall come out 
the law, and the words of God from Jérusalem." Hence 
Abraham only saw the place from a distance (of time). 

We shall hâve to résume this part of our présent sub- 
ject, when we shall come to speak of the time that the 
ofFering of sacrifices ceased, w^hich will be the last Chapter 
of " Collection of Thoughts." 

We will therefore direct our attention to the outside 
part of our subject and see if it lias any coïncidence with 
its inward appearance as shown through the " key hole" 
w^hich we hâve made therein, and into which we do not 
feel fully authorized to penetrate further at the présent 
time, nor for the présent purpose. 

Abraham rose up early in the morning and took his 
son laaac and his two servants with him. Hebrew ver- 
sion. English: " Two of his young men with him."* 



*The différence in the meaning between the two ver- 
sions is this: He took " his two servants" implies a spe- 
cialty, or thing which was usually known, or that gener- 
rJy went with him. ^ 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 3O9 

And the phrase, two of his young men, is not defi- 
nite, and is unusiml. But if he had two actual servants, or 
two young men, with him, why did he himself saddle the 
ass and clove or split the wood ? And wliy did he leave 
the two servants at the place from w^hence he perceived 
the locaHty w^hich God said He v^^ould show unto him? 

If we should be told that he did not v^ish they should 
be présent or know^ anytning about it, why and for what 
purpose did he take them at ail? And if he had an ass 
with him, why did he not take the ass along and make 
him carry " the wood for the burnt ofFering," instead of 
making poor Isaac carry it, who must hâve been very 
young at the time? And to keep up a fîre long enough to 
consume the body of a man to ashes, would take more 
wood than a youth could carry. 

Reader, there is a very good answer to thèse ques- 
tions, and it is this: 

The two servants were of the same class that rode 
with Balaam when he went to the king of Moab for the 
purpose of cursing the Israélites, or the sons of Abraham. 
The will, and the mind, and the ass that Abraham had 
with him, was also of the same kind. We hâve as much 
reason to believe, from ail the Bible tells us, that Abra- 
ham did actually go and build an altar; tied Isaac; placed 
him upon the w^ood on the top of the altar; and took his 
knife and was ready to kill him, and would hâve killed 
him, if the angel had not called to him. But the Lord, 
when He spoke to him in the vision during the night, did 
not say to him that he should kill his son. The Bible 
says: The Lord told him to " ofFer him there for a burnt 
offering," not kill him and burn him for a burnt ofFering. 



3IO A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



We hâve as much reasoa to believe that Abraham act- 
ually did it as we hâve to beheve that Hosea did go and 
take a wife of whoredom, and had children of whoredom, 
and that ''he went and took Gomer, the daughter of 
Diblaim/' and then told his children, ''Pleadwith your 
mother; plead, for she is not my wife, neither am I her 
husband; let her put away her whoredom, * * 

* lest I strip her naked, * # * ^^^^ make 

her as a wilderness * * * ^^^ gjg^y ^ler with 

thirst." And ail thèse were done and were to be done, 
because **she had committed whoredom." Or, as we 
hâve to believe that Ezekiel lay three hundred and nine- 
ty days on one side and three hundred and ninety days 
on the other side; or that he ate three hundred and ninety 
days long the bread that the parable says was made from 
ail sorts of grain that we know of and some that we do n't 
know of, and was mixed with cow dung; or, as we hâve 
to believe, that he ate the roU: ''son of man * * 

eat that thou lindest; eat this roU # * * then 

did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweet- 
ness." But to believe ail thèse, we would hâve to believe 
that he ate the whole of it while he was in the state of 
dreaming or having a vision. And what would we do 
then with what the prophet himself tells us, that they ail 
are only comparisons or emblematic of something else, 
and that was the case with the sacrifîcing of Isaac. 

We are aware and expect that some men who are 
even religious and honest in their religions doings but 
hâve no other knowledge of the Bible than what they 
were told or taught by others of the Bible, will probably 
spurn our explanations. But that can not, does not, and 
ought not to blockade our path to truth, neither can this 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 31I 

cover up the facts upon which we build our conclusions. 
The Word altar is translatée from the Hebrew word 
'* m,z,b,h," and is pronounced mizbayach. The purpose 
of an altar was to sacrifice upon, but if that was the 
purpose, then it ought, and we say it would hâve been, 
called in the Hebrew language l,z,b,h,. The letter"!" 
désignâtes the préposition to, while the letter **m," 
désignâtes the préposition *'from," which is just the re- 
verse from *'to," and the same word ** m,z,b,h ," is used 
ail through the Bible to express the words of or from 
the sacrifice, as in the third verse of the third chapter of 
Leviticus, and ail through the Bible where the words 
"of" or ''from" the sacrifice is used. The name of the 
altar shows enough of itself, that it was only ordained for 
the purpose of weaning them off from sacrificing instead 
of habituating them to it, as the présent génération does 
and the ignorant of the past générations hâve believed. 

We think it is hère proper to remark, before we 
drop that subject about the chance that Abraham had to 
dispute with heathen and convince them of their folly for 
sacrificing human beings, if he had led and was ready 
to sacrifice his only son, they would hâve said to him, 
"why your God hath told you to sacrifice your son 
to Him, and you was ready to kill, and wouldst hâve 
done so, had He not known that you love him, and 
that you don't sacrifice with the whole will of thy heart; 
hence he don't want to accept him, and therefore gave 
you a ram which you hâve offered to Him with the joy- 
fulness of thy heart." 

Yes, reader, Abraham's vision to sacrifice his son, 
of whom the seed of Abraham was to come out, was the 



312 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

emblem of what the seed of Abraham are, and what they 
hâve been since they came into the world. He was to 
offer them wilHngly, (as the sacrifice of a burnt offering 
had to be ofîfered wilHngly and without cause,) to be in 
the land *'Moriah," the teachers of the ways of God, 
and that land embraces the whole habitable earth. The 
'' ass and the two servants " which he took with him, but 
left them when he saw **the place from a distance;" the 
former is his own body, which, when he was in his vision, 
was inactive; and the latter, the two servants, were no 
other than the will of his heart and the thoughts of his 
mind which were also inactive when their owner, Abra- 
ham, was in his visionary state or condition; the same 
as we ail are when we are dreaming. ''The fire" that 
"Abraham took in his hand," is the fire and zeal which 
he, Abraham, has lighted in the hearts of his posterity 
wherewith they shall enlighten the hearts of the human 
race in the knowledge of the God of Abraham! '*And 
the wood," which *'he placed tipon Isaac," is the fuel 
that kept up that fire from that time up to the présent 
dayî the three days are tke three captivities, Egypt, 
Babylon and the présent one to which the Romans 
brought them and from wkence the end, or "the place," 
which was not designated in the vision, can be, and is 
now plainly seen. 

The sacrifices were for the same purposes that the 
pictures are in our children's primers. The prophets were 
the teachers and when they hâve s-sen that their pupils 
appropriate their time, and mind, and pay their admira- 
tion and worship to the pictures, the (sacrifices,) instead 
of studying the object for which they, the pictures, were 
placed in the book, then the teachers havc rebuked them 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 313 

for it, as we find nearly every prophet has rebuked them 
for believing that God delights in or desires sacrifices. 
Thèse prophets hâve existed and taught until the resting 
place of Abraham's second days ^'journey." When they 
came from Babylon the prophetical teaching ceased, the 
pupils hâve learned enough to know not to sacrifice to 
other deities which did not exist during the time of the 
second temple; and during that rest they were taught to 
prépare themselves for the total abandonment of the 
sacrifices; therefore, the fire had not come down to con- 
sume the sacrifices. The ''Urim and Thummin did not 
work; everything was left to the Sanederim or synod, a 
body of seventy men of the most studious and philosophi- 
cal minds, so that man may learn to dépend upon his own 
mind and reason, the capital which our heavenly Fath- 
er gave to ail of us when He sent us out into the world 
the same as our earthly parents do to us before they 
send us out into the world and make us dépend upon 
our own resources. And at the end of that rest He, 
God, started them upon their third day's journey, which 
is not yet ended, but hâve reached a place from which 
they and the world with them can perceive the place of 
their destination. 

We will hère drop that subject, to be resumed and 
continued when the Biblical history will bring us to the 
time that the journey of the third day begun. 

But before we leave this subject we must tell the 
reader who may think that he has cause and authority to 
dispute our conclusions about the several subjects which 
constitute the subjects of this chapter; we must tell him 
that his grounds for disputing it, must be such that shall 



314 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

cover the ground and authority of Maimonidc, and four 
renowned commentators upon his " Moureh Nebuchim," 
including the immortal ** Isaac Abarbanel " and a fifth one 
*^The Ramban," who does not question the correctness 
of '* Maimonide's" knowledge or authority and explana- 
tions; but questions why Noah brought sacrifices. He 
reasons that the sacrifices which Noah brought after he 
came out of the ark could not hâve been for the purpose 
of weaning men from sacrificing to their deities, because 
there were no other men on earth than Noah and his 
sons. '*Shem Tove," one of the four commentators on 
the "Moureh Nebuchim," answers that question of the 
"Ramban." But, we hâve chosen to explain that ques- 
tion the way we did, for several reasons: First; the 
ground from whence he draws his answer is Talmudical, 
with which most of our readers are unacquainted. Sec- 
ond; because we are only opening up the Bible, not 
the Talmud; hence whatever we can explain of the Bible 
by the Bible itself, we must do; and then ask if our ex- 
planation agrées with what the Talmud says about it 
and use the Talmud for a support to the Bible, and the 
Bible the source. The Bible must and does explain 
itself, and if any of our readers who are ''Talmudists '* 
should find themselves called to dispute our explana- 
tions, from the knowledge which they hâve of the Tal- 
mud, we must tell them that they must measure their 
Talmudical knowledge with the six immortal sages, the 
four commentators, the ''Ramban "and the author of 
the "Moureh Nebuchim;" Maimonide himself ! whom, 
ail the rest call, the head of our teachers and father of 
ail. If there is one whose Talmudical knov/ledge and 
philosophical mind equals any one of the six, is a thing 
which we hâve no reason to believe; and if there is one 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 315 

that equals one of the six, we would be very happy to 
hear of him; and it would be an honor to us and a benefit 
to the world if he would dispute with us ; and yet we 
advise him to examine and understand the '' Moureh 
Nebuchim, " at least the second and third part of it, 
before he raises his voice to dispute. The old adage, 
that the " Mourch Nebuchim ," is a book, that is hard to, 
or no one can understand, has lost its patent right. 
The Bible and science reveal the meanings, expose the 
motives and spirit of its unequaled author. 



"^^^^^^ 



3l6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

PROPHECY AND INSPIRATION. WHAT IT WAS AND 

WHAT THE WORLD, AFTER PROPHECY CEASED, 

WAS MADE TO BELIEVE IT WAS; OR, 

WHAT THE UNTAUGHT DID 

AND DO BELIEVE WAS. 

Mr. Paine labors very hard in his '*Age of Reason," 
to show that prophecy, in the time of the prophets, was 
not believed to be that which the world now believes it 
was. 

It is, and for a long time has been, believed by 
those who hâve not learned to know better, that a 
prophet was one to whom the spirit of God came unex- 
pected and undesired by him to whom it came, and that 
the spirit that came upon him, made him the prophet, 
speak and act without his consent to, and knowledge of 
what he, the prophet, did or said. 

That idea and belief created the unanswerable ques- 
tion of Jonahs running away from God. Scoffers scoff 
and laugh at the idea of a prophet running away from 
the présence of God, without fear of being answered by 
the teachers of religion or commentators of the Bible 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 31/ 

who believe in and teach the présent idea of and belief 
in prophecy and inspiration. 

That idea was good enougli for the purpose for 
which it was adapted by those who spoke to and taught 
such, who knew no better, and whose minds could not 
understand better or the reahty of it. Prophecy, mir- 
acle and mystery, were the only methods which could 
pacify the human race during its childhood and youth. 
And the parents or teachers of the Bible, who were but 
few in number, in comparison to the number of the pupils 
that they had, hâve thereby quited their pupils, and 
kept them within the purpose, the same as a mother 
tells her child, not to touch this or that; and gives certain 
reasons for it, which she knows fuU well is not so but says 
so for a certain purpose. But now when man's heart has 
conceived a will to know the truth, and man's reason has 
become strong enough to understand and ask how in- 
spiration came to the prophets without their solicitation 
and will, and had to speak without using their will and 
understanding when they spoke. If that is so, says 
reason, how could Moses refuse to go to Pharaoh; and 
told God to send somebody else? How could Jonah 
escape from God after he was told by the Lord to go to 
Nineveh? He must hâve exercised his own will to attempt 
to go to Tarsish instead of going to Nineveh. 

And reason refuses to submit, and she teaches the 
will of the heart, not to accept the senseless accusation 
against the just, righteous and merciful God, that He 
will tempt His children by sending to them false pro- 
phets; to tell and advise His children, to go and serve 
other Gods, so that He, God, may find out whether His 



3l8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

children are true to Him or not. And perform miracles 
as a sign of the truth of what the false prophet said, as 
we are told in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter thir- 
teen. 

It cannot reasonably be said that the false prophets 
were not inspired or had no visions at ail. First; it tells 
of the signs that *'would corne" of which the false pro- 
phet spoke. If the false prophets were not inspired, then 
the signs which they gave would not corne. And if that 
had been the case, Moses would simply hâve told the 
Israélites, *' If a prophet tells them something, they shall 
ask him for a sign; if the sign shall come, he was a true 
prophet: if it will not come, then he was a false pro- 
phet." But such is not the case. Moses tells them, 
^' And the sign or the wonder came to pass whereof he 
spoke unto thee. * * * Thou shalt not heark- 

en unto the words of the prophet or that dreamer of 
dreams; for the Lord thy God proveth you." Second; 
It can not be reasonably supposed that anyone would 
mind what the false prophets said, if nothing came to 
pass of what they said, and if they were not inspired, 
they could know of nothing that will come to pass. And 
it is certainly very unreasonable to suppose, and it is 
absurdto believe that two kings such as Ahab, king of 
Israël, and Jehosaphat, king ofjudah, would hâve risked 
their armies to go to war against the king of Syria, on 
what the false prophets told them, even after prophet 
Micaiah, in whom the king of Judah seems to hâve had 
faith, told them not to go, for they will not succeed, if 
the false prophets in whom the king of Judah had no 
faith, had never foretold things that came to pass. And 
the only reason that the king of Israël gave for not de- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 319 

pending upon prophet Micaiah was, ''I hâte him, for he 
doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil." He 
did not say that he was no prophet, or he was a false 
prophet, but said he ''prophesied evil against him." 

In the year 1774, when the question of American 
independence was debated in the American Congress, 
among other arguments used to discourage séparation 
from England, the danger of having our towns battered 
down was strongly urged. The honorable Gadsden 
replied, ^'Our seaport towns, Mr. Président, are com- 
posed of brick and wood, if they are destroyed, we hâve 
clay and timber enough in the country to rebuild them; 
but if the liberties of our country are destroyed, where 
shall we fînd the materials to replace them?" 

We hâve, within the last twenty years, very frequent- 
ly asked both Christian and Jewish theologians why they 
don't do away with the prevailing idea and belief about 
prophecy and inspiration, which idea and belief are con- 
trary to the Biblical history of the subject in question, 
and contrary to the theology of the Jewish commentators 
of the Bible, that existed before Christianity came 
into existence; and that hâve existed since, and that ex- 
ists now. Except they who can form no opinion of their 
own, and don't know enough to understand what others 
hâve said, and still less explain now, in this time of free- 
dom of speech and thought, why they who wrote in âges 
of ignorance and darkness, and who could not, without 
endangering their lives, explain better than they did, 
but were compelled to write as they did. Why not ex- 
plain their hidden meanings now? The reply that we 
used to get to our queries was: ''It will destroy the 



320 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

présent, erroneous and anti-Biblical, theology and faith;" 
and that was the cause why our reply to Paine's "Age of 
Reason," was not published in 1863. 

But now, when some Christian and some reformed 
Jewish ministers are ready to give up the Bible, for the 
sake of saving their erroneous idéal, and when a bold 
assassin had nearly succeeded in legalizing murder by 
covering himself with the erroneous idea of inspiration, 
is time now, and proper to say to our friends of ideas 
and faith, in the words of the vénérable Gadsden. "True 
religions ideas and faith, are formed of Biblical mater- 
ials. If We save the Bible, we will hâve materials enough 
to rebuild our ideas and faith. But, if the Bible is de- 
stroyed, where can we get materials and how can we re- 
place it? 

We, therefore, déclare war against ail anti-Biblical 
ideas and faith. And in the words of the Honorable 
Hancock, who, when called upon to speak about the 
question of bombarding Boston, said: " It is true, sir, 
nearly ail the property I Imve in the world is in houses 
and in other real estate, in the town of Boston; but if the 
expulsion of the British army from it, and the liberties 
of our country require their being burnt to ashes, issue 
the order for that purpose immediately." 

We beiieve that the American people, the descend- 
ants of the patriotic Gadsdens and Hancocks, will say, in 
answer to the questions of establishing Biblical truth, 
and the driving out of erroneous religious ideas and 
faith; the same as their glorious and honorable ances- 
tors hâve said, about establishing true freedom, and 
driving out the British army. ^^ Issue the order immé- 
diat clyV 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 321 

What is now called inspiration, was accomplished hy 
training and practice; but, not every one who was train- 
ed became inspired whenever he wanted, and others 
could only become what is called inspired in the night. 
Among the many qualifications which the prophet had 
to hâve, and which Maimonide, names in his "Yad Hach- 
sokoj" chapter vii, part " Yesouday Hatoureh," or 
Foundations of the Law, and in his " Moureh Nebuchim," 
part second, chapter xlii-xlvi; and he takes it from and 
explains the "Talmud," and supports what he says, by 
short quotations of and référence to the Bible. He says: 
" The prophétie spirit did not rest but on such as were 
great in wisdom; he had to be strong enough to subdue 
his nature appertaining to the body; and had to be a 
man of very extensive knowledge, so that when he went 
into the "paradise," or garden of Eden,* he shall hâve 
a proper knowledge to understand, and to reach its proper 
meaning or purpose; and had to separate himself from 
the generality of the people, who walked in the dark- 
ness of the times, and had to habituate himself to keep 
his mind and heart away from everything that was not 
in accordance with an inspired thought, or from any 
vain thought and its purpose. And after he had done 
ail thèse, and a great deal more, which we do not think 
necessary for us to insert, he was turned into another 
man; he understood within his mind, that he is not 
what he was. 

AU thèse, and the rest which he says fully coïncide 
with what the Bible tells us of prophets. It tells of the 
children of the prophets, meaning students, the same as is 

*The Talmud, in speaking of the Rabbi Zaumo, says: "he has not yet 
entered Paradise," meaning he has not yet ihe proper knowledge of the 
subject. 

21 



22 



322 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

said the pupils or students of a collège; it also tells us that 
they were walking in companies or classes in the fields, 
and played music. Music is a thing that easily concen- 
trâtes the mind and feelings upon the tune that is played; 
and very likely they played such tunes as were adapted 
for the purpose of uniting the heart and mind, and that 
was what they were training themselves for. They 
walked about in the fields in classes to keep away from 
everything that could or would attract their attention 
and keep them from the generality of people. Sam- 
uel was placed, when a babe^ in the tabernacle under the 
care of Eli, the high priest, so that he shall not mingle 
with other children, his mother has dedicated him unto 
the Lord, and having been trained to a prophétie degree 
from his childhood; and was probably also naturally 
possessed of the necessary qualifications of a prophet, 
he attained the position soon, and before he expected, 
his spirit, which is the electricity, began to work in him, 
and he thought he heard a voice. 

Hère is a proof, which cannot be successfully dis- 
puted, that the spirit of the Lord did not come upon the 
prophet, without or against the will of the latter. 

Samuel laid down, and he heard, or thought he 
heard, a voice calling him; he thought Eli was calling 
him and he said " Hère am I," and ran to Eli; the latter 
told him "I did not call thee; go and lie down again;" 
he thought again and again that he was called, and 
each time he ran to Eli. 

And not until Samuel said what Eli told him to say, 
when he came to him the third time, " Go lie down; 
and it shall be, if He call thee, that thou shalt say: 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 323 

speak Lord, for thy servant heareth." When the voice 
called, or Samuel believed he was called the fourth time; 
when he said what Eli told him to say; " Speak Lord, 
for thy servant heareth;" the voice then spoke. Why 
did not that voice speak to him, what it wanted to say, 
or what it did say after the fourth calling; when it called 
to him the first, the second, or the third time? If the 
voice had, after it called Samuel, said to him what it 
wanted he, Samuel, would not hâve ran to Eli. 

The reason why it did not speak the first, second or 
third time, is very plain and obvions. So long as Sam- 
uel believed that it was Eli who was calling him, his will 
was to run and see what Eli wanted; and to obey what 
he, Eli, will say to him. Hence, Eli was the subject 
which occupied the mind and heart of Samuel, instant- 
aneously, each and every time that he heard his name 
called. Neither his will nor his mind were attractive, or 
inclined to the subject of prophecy. But as soon as he 
did lie down, and his mind did naturally begin to contem- 
plate about the voice that called him; and the désire of 
his will naturally must hâve been, each time after he re- 
turned from Eli and found out that he did not call him, 
to find out who it was that was calling him; and that 
désire caused the call to be repeated; and during the 
first three times, as soon as the call was made, Eli be- 
came the subject of Samuel's mind, and the désire of his 
heart; hence it said nothing more. 

But after Eli told him, in case he should be called 
again, not to run to him, but should say: " speak Lord, 
thy servant heareth;" his, Samuels, mind, when he laid 
down, contemplated upon and anticipated the subject of 
prophecy, and his heart produced a powerful will to 



324 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

find out what it will say, and it did speak; and that wa^ 
the case with ail the prophets. Moses, the father of ail 
the prophets, was no exception. It says, "and the an- 
gel of the Lord appeared unto him, in a flQ.me of fire, 
out of the midst of a bush. " But does the narrative in 
question say, that Moses saw an angel, or that he sup- 
posed it was an angel ? No, it only says, he saw a flame 
of fire in the bush, and his mind was wonderingly con- 
templating Avhat the cause was why "the bush was not 
consumed" by the fire which he saw; and his heart was 
equally as désirons to find out the same cause; hence, 
Moses said, " I will turn aside (meaning turn his mind 
and will from ail other subjects,) and see this great sight, 
why this bush is not burnt. " It follows, "And when the 
Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called out, 
Moses, Moses! Moses answered, hère am I;" and the 
subject of the conversation was entered upon. 

If Moses had thought as Samuel did, that some per- 
son that was with or about him, was calling him, 
and turned his mind and will to the person, that he 
thought was calling him, the propheting conversation 
would not hâve been entered upon, the same as it was 
with Samuel. 

Man is a perfect telegraph; his mind is the electrici- 
ty; his will is the machine that draws the electricity upon 
the subject, and is also, the operator of the telegraph; 
and the subject upon which the mind contemplâtes, is 
the pôles and wires of the telegraph. The mind cannot 
contemplate anything which the will does not désire to 
accomplish. Children with the strongest of minds and 
most powerful thoughts, cannot learn without they hâve 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 325 

a will to learn. If we could know how to bring up our 
chiidren, so that their will shall be trained to work 
in unity with their minds, there would not be a cliild 
that could not be whatever it, or its parents désire it 
should be. Hence, necessity is the best and most 
successful teacher; because necessity has the power to 
bring the mind and will in unity of action. 

The prophets were trained to bring their desires and 
minds in unity; and the prophet not only had to unité 
his will and mind, to obtain in him the prophétie spirit, 
but he also had to divest himself of ail selfishness and 
bodily objects, so that he shall not make use of his pro- 
phétie power for anything else than for the purpose for 
which it was given him. 

The false prophets hâve made use of their power to 
gratify their will; and as soon as he had donc so, his 
mind stopped working, (as it was with BalaamJ they 
saw visions, but their minds refused, or became disa- 
bled, to give the proper explanations of what the mean- 
ing of the vison was. They saw dreams, but could not 
tell the interprétations thereof, the same as any man 
who dreams, but does not know what it means. 

After the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israël 
became divided. Jéroboam, the king of the ten tribes, 
was afraid, if he will allow his people to go to worship in 
Jérusalem, the place that God hath chosen for His wor- 
ship, that his people will turn back to the son of Solo- 
mon, king of Judah. To avoid this, he put up two 
golden calves, and taught the people to worship thèse 
calves, and told them; *' Behold thy Gods, O Israël, 



326 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. " 
(First Kings, chapter xii.) 

He certainly could not successfully hâve accomplish- 
ed this, as he did without the aid of priests and prophets, 
he bribed or purchased the priests and prophets to help 
him, they were the teachers of the people. The prophets 
of Israël, or the most of them, became false; they saw 
visions, but they hâve explained them in accordance 
with the désire of Jéroboam, the king, consequently 
their minds became disabled to give the proper explan- 
ations of what they saw. The " about four thousand 
prophets," which Ahab, king of Israël, in the présence 
of Jehosaphat, king of Judah, has consulted whether the 
two kings should go to war with the king of Syria, and 
who hâve advised them to go, were as willing to give 
them a true and proper advise^ as Balaam was willing 
to curse the Israélites, and accomplish the object for 
which the king of Moab had sent for him. But the 
minds of the prophets in question, like the mind of 
Balaam, stood with their swords (the power to destroy 
the will) in their hands, and their wills (the Balaam's 
ass) could not be accomplished. 

But the king of Judah, Jehosaphat, had no confi- 
dence, it seems, in the prophets, and he asked " if there 
is not a prophet of the Lord besides," the four hundred 
prophets. Prophet Micaiah was brought; the messenger 
that went for him told him, that ail the other prophets 
déclare good unto the kings with one mouth, let thy 
words be, I pray thee, like the words of one of them, 
and speak that which is good. He did not ask the pro- 
phet to tell the truth, but asked him to tell the same 
as the other prophets did; (this shows that the pro- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 327 

phet could tell what he wanted and not what the spirit 
made him say.) But, Micaiah did not promise him that 
he would do what he was asked to do, he said; "As the 
Lord liveth, what the Lord will sayunto me, that will I 
speak," meaning, he will not tell the meaning of what 
the Lord will say to him, he will only speak the same- 
thing over that will bc said to him. 

It follows, that when the king asked " Shall we go to 
battle or forbear?" the prophet said, go and prosper, 
-with which the king it seems was not satisfied, for he said 
to him, " How many times shall I adjure thee, that thou 
tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the 
Lord?" and in answer to that he said: "I saw ail Israël 
scattered upon the hills as sheep that hâve no shepherd; 
and the Lord said, thèse hâve no master; let them return 
every man to his house in peace. " And the king of Israël 
said unto Jehosaphat, " Did I not tell thee that he would 
prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?" and he 
said; hear thou, therefore the word of the Lord: I saw 
the Lord sitting on his throne, and ail the hosts of 
heaven standing by him, on the right hand and his 
leftj and the Lord said; who may go and persuade 
Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead 
* * and the spirit said: "I will persuade him. "I will 

be a lying spirit in the mouth of ail his prophets. And 
the Lord told him, go forth and do so. " * * "The 
Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of ail your 
prophets." (First Kings, chapter xxii.) 

The resuit was Ahab was killed, and Israël was left 
without a master, as prophet Micaiah had foretold, 
Hence we hâve no reason to believe that he, Micaiah 



328 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

was a false prophet, and consequently must hâve been 
inspired; nevertheless it plainly shows that he acted as 
he desired, or the same as any man who knows or saw 
something which others hâve not, he, the one that has 
the information can state or explain what he knows in 
any manner that he desires. 

The officer that was sent for the prophet, asked the 
latter to tell the king the same that ail the other pro- 
phets had said; the prophet swore that he woud tell 
what the Lord said; that he did "go and prosper, for 
the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king." He 
the, prophet, did not say what the Lord will deliver, he 
only said "it," neither did he say in which king's hand 
the Lord would deliver. And according to the whole 
narrative, the Lord actually did want that Ahab should 
go. It was plainly understood by Ahab and Jehosa- 
phat, that the prophet was telling them in a jesting 
manner; hence, Ahab asked him; " how many times 
shall I adjure thee to tell me nothing but that which is 
true in the name of the Lord." The prophet then told 
him. " I saw ail Israël scattered upon the hills as sheep 
that hâve not a shepherd," for which the king accused 
him of telling him nothing but evil. The prophet then 
told him of the false spirit in the mouths of ail the pro- 
phets. We thus plainly see that the prophet while pro- 
phecying, could exercise his will and be governed to 
speak according to surrounding circumstances. And 
that was the case with every prophet. And that was 
the case with Jonah; he did not want to prophecy 
because he desired that Nineveh shall be destroyed. 
He saw what Nineveh, or its king would do to 
Israël, hence, he wanted that Nineveh should be de- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 329 

stroyed. His running away from the Lord, means he 
ran from the place that the prophecy did or could corne 
on him. 

We can find no instance, when a prophet prophecied 
about any other nation than the Israélites, that the pro- 
phet was out of the land of Israël, or, in other words, 
if the subject of the prophecy was about a nation, out 
of the land of Israël, and the Israélites were not inter- 
-ested in the subject of the prophecy, the prophétie 
spirit did not work upon the prophet, unless he, the 
prophet, was in the land of Israël, but if the subject of 
the prophecy was about Israël, or about the land of 
Israël, though other nations or people were included in 
the prophecy, then the spirit did operate upon the pro- 
phet though he was not in the land of Israël. Thèse 
are well established and long known undisputed facts, 
among Jewish Biblical commentators. 

Jonah was in the land of Israël; there came upon him 
the prophétie spirit; told him to go to Ninevah and 
there prophecy their destruction unless they repent. 
Why he did not want to go has already been said, but, 
to get rid of the prophétie spirit, he could not, without 
going out of the land of Israël, the only place where 
that spirit could act upon him, hence he started to 
the place that he did, which was not running away from 
God, but from the place where the prophétie spirit could 
act upon him, this is the outside idea of Jonahs run- 
ning away. 

We will now investigate where Jonah ran to, and 
what happened to him, for which purpose we will 
examine the fîrst chapter of the book of Jonah, as given 



330 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

in the Hebrew text, of which we will make a Verbatim 
translation. Chapter i: iii, "And Jonah arose to run away 
(Tarshish, pronouncedTarshishoh) from before the Lord; 
and he went down Yoffaw, (English version Joppa,) and 
he found a ship corne Tarshish, (English, going to Tar- 
sish,) and he gaveher reward "Schoroh," (English, so he 
paid the fare thereof,) and he went in her to corne with 
them Tarshish from before the Lord. " 

The Hebrew text says the ship "came Tarshish;" it 
îs true that that makes no sensible expression; thçre 
must be a préposition between the verb "came" and the 
noun "Tarshish;" but if the préposition "to," which is in 
the version, be placed after the verb "came," it will read 
" He, Jonah, found a ship came to Tarsish. " The ques- 
tion is then; the text says that Jonah went down to 
Joppa and there found a ship, "came to Tarshish. " How 
could he go from Joppa to Tarshish on a ship that "came 
to Tarshish," while he was at Joppa? The absurd idea 
that prophet Jonah got into a ship at Joppa to run 
away to Tarshish, from before the Lord, was created by 
mistranslating the Hebrew verb "boh," came, the letter 
"h," at the end of the word désignâtes the féminine gen- 
der, which, in the Hebrew language, an active verb must 
agrée with the nominative case, in gender as well as in 
namber and in person. That erroneous and absurd 
idea, we sa}^, was created by inserting into the English 
version of the Bible, the words, "going to" in place of 
"came" as it is in the Hebrew text. 

The word Tarshish, is made use of three times in the 
third verse or the first chapter of the book in question, 
or in the verse in question, the first and last hâve an 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 331 

"h" at the end of the word. If the word, Tarshish^ is a 
noun, then the "h" may be said, désignâtes or stands 
for the préposition, to, but in the phrase, "he found a 
ship going to Tarshish," hère the additional, h, is omitted. 
And then it says: "And he went down in her, to go 
with them, Tarshishoh from before the Lord;" the ques- 
tion iSjWith whom? Suppose one would say, "I went 
on a steamer to go with them to Europe," would cer- 
tainly be considered that the one who said so did not 
know how to express himself better, and whether it is 
proper to say that the one who wrote the book in ques- 
tion knew not how to express himself better than he did, 
will be time enough to say so when it will appear that 
the subject in question means the name of a place, as 
the word steamer means a vessel, in the sentence quoted 
for the purpose of .illustration, which can never appear^ 
for it is not so. 

The next thing is; where is Joppa? K a vesseï came 
to Joppa, which the text does not say it did, Joppa 
must hâve been a seaport or situated somewhere near 
the sea, and the only place that we find in the Bible by 
that name, that was in the land of Israël, and that is 
spelled in the Hebrew text the same as it is in the book 
of Jonah, is "yfw," which, however, in the English ver- 
sion, is translated into the word Japho, (see Joshua 
xix: xlvi,) and that same word is in the book of Jonah 
translated Joppa. If a man would say, that he came 
down to Jérusalem, which is an inland city, miles away 
from the sea coast, and while he was there, a vessel 
came on to New York, and he got on to that vessel and 
went with them to the latter place, the man who would 
hâve said so, would certainly be considered as a buffoon, 



332 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

or a fit inmate for an insane asylum, and he that would 
try to find some sensé in it and insist that the man at 
Jérusalem got on to the vessel that came to New York, 
while the former Avas at Jérusalem, would be considered 
a fit cell mate of the one that said so. And that is the 
case or condition in which they, who believe that Jonah, 
while he was in Joppa, which was an inland place far 
away from the sea coast, got on to a vessel that landed 
at Tarshish, while he was at the former place, which was 
a distance that took longer to reach than it does from 
Jérusalem to New York; it tookthree years, the ships of 
Solomon, to go and come back from Tarshish. (See 
First Kings, chapter x: xxii.) 

Another very unreasonable, unusual and unnatural 
thing, which is connected with the absurd idea of 
Jonahs running away to Tarshish, or to any other place 
from before the Lord is this: in verse fifth it says: 
"Every man (of the mariners) cried unto his god," this 
plainly tells that every man cried to his own god. The 
Word god, is hère translated from the Hebrew word 
"alohove," the word Lord, in the whole chapter is trans- 
lated from the word Jehovah of whom^ the mariners 
knew nothing until Jonah told them; the question is, 
how much respect or fear could the mariners hâve had 
of the God, of whom Jonah told them, and of whom 
they knew nothing before he told them. That he runs 
away from the God that hath created the heaven and 
the earth, nevertheless, he who told them of that great 
Godj told them that he was running away from that God 
into Tarshish; How much respect would any of us pay 
to a God of whom we never hâve heard, and how much 
respect would anyone of us pay to a man, who in the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 333 

midst of the Atlantic océan in the midst of a storm and 
împending shipwreck, would tell us that it was his God, 
from whom he was running away to Europe, brought 
that impending shipwreck upon us? 

Would it be likely to lead us away from the Gods, 
in whom we were taught and brought up to believe^ and 
be, in the moment of danger, converted into the belief 
and service of a God, that has no dominion or power 
in Europe or in Tarshish, when the man who told us of 
that God was running away from his God? Yet, it says 
that thèse who were on board the boat with Jonah, 
feared and prayed, and sacrificed a sacrifice unto the 
Lord that Jonah told them of. 

If they hâve prayed and sacrificed unto the Lord 
that Jonah told them of, before the storm stopped, then 
they had no évidence to believe what Jonah told them, 
and if it should be supposed that they had prayed and 
sacrificed after the storm stopped, then they had noth- 
ing to fear and pray for. 

It is just as absurd to say or believe that Jonah ran 
away from before the Lord into Tarshish, or into any 
other place, as it would be to say and believe that pro- 
phet Hosea *'took unto him a wife of whoredom and 
begat children," and ail that is there said about it, or 
that Ezekiel ate the bread that was mixed with dung; 
or that the seven poor and lean cows had ate up the 
seven fat ones which Pharaoh saw in his dream. 

The Word Tarshish is, m the Hebrew language, used 
to designate certain angels. *'Tarshishim yaggidu tifif- 
artow," which means, angels tell his beauty. 



334 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 



The Word "Joppa," the supposée! place in the absurd 
idea, that Jonah found there a ship to go into Tarshish, 
is translated from the Hebrew word "yfw," pronounced 
yofîfaw, which means his beauty. 

The word ship is translated from the same word that 
désignâtes lamentation. Jonah saw that Nineveh or the 
people of Nineveh, will destroy his nation, the ten 
tribes of Israël. He refused to go into Nineveh and 
announce her doom, for he knew her people would repent. 
What Jonah desired to do was to save Israël, either by 
getting the latter to repent or by allowing, their predes- 
tined destructor Nineveh, to be destroyed. 

The word fish, in the English version of the Bible, 
îs translated from the Hebrew word "dag;" the word 
fish, is mentioned four times in the second chapterof the 
book in question. 

In the first verse of the second chapter in the Hebrew 
Bible, or in the last verse of the first chapter of the 
English Bible, the word fish, is mentioned twice, and is 
translated from the word "dag," and in telling that God 
spake to the fish to vomit out Jonah, the word fish is 
also translated from the word "dag," which has not the 
letter that désignâtes gender. But in telling that Jonah 
prayed unto the Lord, out of the belly of the fish; 
there, the word fish, is translated from the word "dagh," 
the letter "h" at the end of the word désignâtes the 
féminine gender, and the same word, with the "h" 
at the end is used in the Hebrew language to express 
'"care," anxiety and uneasiness of mind. 

"Maimonide," in his "Moureh Nebuchim," chapter 
xxxii: part ii, in speaking of the ass that spoke to 
Balaam, and of the fish that swallowed Jonah, says: 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 335 

but simpletons believe thèse things to hâve bcen a real- 
ity, and in chapter xhi, same part, in speaking of the 
same subject, says: ail of that which it says about 
Balaam's ass and the like of it, is no reality, but 
the prophets saw it in their prophétie dreams or visions; 
and four commentators coincide with him in what he 
said about the subject in question. 

The mind of Jonah was uneasy, he was anxious and 
solicitous for his people, he saw that they, or their pre- 
destined destroyer, Nineveh, would before long be thrown 
in the destructive océan of trouble. His natural désire, 
or the désire of his heart was that Nineveh should go 
down first, which he thought would, at least for a time, 
delay the catastrophe of his people; hence he refused to 
go to Nineveh and do there what God told him to do, 
which made him disobedient, that brought "down" 
("yfw,") his beauty. And he found (onioh) cause to la- 
ment; ("onioh,") a ship came "Tarshish," (an angel,) a 
méditative thought to décide between his love for his 
people, and his duty, fear and love for his God; with 
*'them," that is, with thèse feelings and contending 
éléments he had to go, they were the waves and the storm 
that brought the ship at the point of becoming wrecked 
in the stormy océan of his mind. At last a she fish 
*'dagh," careworness, swallowed him; he was unable to 
décide what to do; he began to pray, and was in that 
condition three days and three nights. He at last resolved 
to go where and do what God told him; and it grieved 
him to death, when he saw that the people of Nineveh had 
repented, for he saw that the utter distructor of his 
people was saved and that the utter destruction of 
Israël was sure. 



336 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

MIRACLES AND HYSTERIES. 

The contents of Paine's "Age of Reason," consists- 
of three, what he, the author, called grammatical ques- 
tions; one, contained in the 36th chapter of Genesis, 
about the kings of Edom and Israël, which we hâve 
already disposed of, as well as his idea that the création, 
and not the Bible, is the Avord of God. 

And his second grammatical question is; why Moses- 
did not Write, God said to me, instead "God said to 
Moses," as we fïnd he did write in the Bible. 

This is a question that is not worth while to appro- 
priate much thought, or give much space in the "Col- 
lection of Thoughts," for it. The world knows now, 
that it is a foolish question, but we will consider it for ail 
that it is worth, when we shall hâve come to consider 
the third question, which is, how came Moses to say of 
himself, that he was the meekest of ail men, which is. 
said in the I2th chapter of Numbers. 

And there are two or three, which Mr. Paine calls, 
unhistorical questions, to which we will give due con- 
sidération when we shall reach them; the rest of the 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 33/ 

"Age of Reason," is fîlled with questions about and 
arguments against prophecy, miracles and mystery. 

We hâve in the preceeding chapter, we believe, fully 
explained what prophecy was, and if the faith of the 
Bible, or man's belief in th^ Bible, would now dépend 
upon prophecy we would explain that subject more 
fully; but the faith that man now has, or ought to hâve 
in the Bible, does not rest upon what the prophet said, 
nor, on how the prophet came to know what he said, 
as has been demonstrated in a former chapter. The 
faith that man now has in the Bible rests upon what the 
Bible itself reveals to man; hence we said no more 
about prophecy. 

We know from where the word miracle came, or 
from what Hebrew word it was translated; and we also 
know the idea that the word miracle conveys to man at 
the présent time; but we are compelled to admit that 
we don't know why mystery is charge d to the Bible. 

The Bible is the same to-day that it w^as seven 
hundred years ago, but man's mind and understanding 
is not the same as it was seven or more hundred years 
ago; and why the human mind retains the same idea of 
the Avord miracle, that it was of necessity conveyed to 
it seven or eight hundred years ago, is indeed a mystery 
to us. 

The word miracle, as we understand it, and as de- 
fined by Webster, conveys the idea of something done, 
not in accordance with, or contray to the known "laws 
of nature;" and if that is so, then ail the scientific dis- 

-22 



23 



338 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

coveries of the présent time are miracles, not inventions 
nor discoveries; for every discovery is contray to the 
laws of nature, as was ''known* hefovQ the invention or 
discovery was made. Newton's System of the Uni- 
verse ought not then to be called a 'discovery, but a 
miracle, because it wascontt-ary to the then known laws 
of nature; and for the same reason the invention of the 
telegraph, the electric light and everything that is done 
by the power of electricity ought to be called miracles 
instead of inventions. The use and power of steam 
were also unknown before it was discovered and 
brought into use; that was contrary to the then known 
laws of nature, and was very wonderful, when it was 
discovered and brought into use; hence steam power is, 
or ought to be called a miracle. 

And America, or the discovery of America, ought 
to be considered the greatest miracle of ail; because 
the discovery was contrary to the then known laws of 
nature; and the knowledge of the men that were then 
in the world was, that it was impossible for another 
hémisphère to hâve been in existence, without being 
known to the world before that time. Every discoverer 
and inventor lias some facilities to demonstrate his dis- 
covery or invention before it becomes a perfect success, 
or is brought into use; but immortal Columbus could 
not demonstrate on a small scale his great miraculous 
discovery, before he demonstrated it by his glorious 
success; hence, Columbus was a performer of miracles, 
and America is the child of miracle, instead of the 
discover}^ by Columbus. They who hang their Biblical 
and religious faith upon miracles may as well drive their 
hook in the scientific discoveries and inventions, and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 339 

hang their Biblical and religious faith upon it, as to 
keep it suspended between light and darkness, or 
between true Biblical knowledge and the ignorance of 
the dark âges, when faith could not be based on any- 
thing else than miracles, because reason and under- 
standing was absolutely banished from man's mind. 
Miracles were then so much in fashion and in use, 
that even a very eminent commentator of the Bible, 
but being that he wrote for the benefit of the ignorant 
classes of his nation, the Jews, has described several 
miracles to Jacob, during the night that he slept in the 
field, while he was on his way to his uncle Laban; or 
when he dreamed that he saw a ladder standing on the 
ground and reached unto heaven. 

The Bible says, that he took from the stones of the 
place and put under his head; that commentator says, 
the stones began to quarrel; each stone wantcd that 
Jacob should lay his head upon him, and for the pur- 
pose of stopping the quarrel between the stones, God 
Consolidated the stones into one. Of course he had 
only said so, because that sort of ideas were more 
eagerly sought, the same as novels are now; and it says 
there that God told Jacob " The land whereon thou liest, I 
will give to thee and to thy seed;" that author asks 
what sort of a gift was it; how much land does a man 
occupy to lie upon; and he answers that question by a 
miraculous act, which is; God rolled up the whole land 
of Canaan under Jacob. 

The Word miracle is translated from the Hebrew 
Word "nés," and that word is used for a noun and for a 
verb, as a noun it désignâtes an ensign, a flag, a sail 



340 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

and a pôle. "And I will lift up an ensign (Nés Heb) to 
the nations," (Isaiah, v; vi.) "When he lifted up an 
ensign on the mountains;" (Isaiah xvii: iii.) ''Set up 
the standard (Nés) upon the walls of Babylon;" (Jere- 
miah li: xii.) "Set up the standard "Nés" in the land;'' 
(Jeremiah li: xxvii. (As a sail.) "They could not 
spread their sail; (Nés Heb,) (Isaiah xxxiii: xxiii.) "Fine 
lincn with broidered * # * -^^2 * * g^ji^ 

("Nés" Heb;") (Ezekiel xxvii: vii.) 

As a pôle; "make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon 
a pôle, ("Nés" Heb.) Moses made a brass serpent and 
put it upon a pôle," ("Nés" Heb.) (Numbers xxi.) 

And wherever that word is used for a verb, the word 
experienced would be the proper translation of it; 
because, it is never used in connection with anything 
that was ,known, that is sure. The définition which 
Webster gives of the word miracle, coïncides with the 
Hebrew word "Nés", when that word is used as a verb 
in the Hebrew Bible, from which the word miracle 
is translated. 

The turning of the rod of Moses into a serpent, was 
not a miracle but a sign; and the word sign, is translated 
from the Hebrew word "mouface," as a sign of curiosity 
or wonder, and a plain sign is, "ous" in the Hebrew 
language; and if they, who cannot believe the Bible 
nor be religious without miracles, will insist that there can 
be no Bible nor religion without their idéal miracles, then 
let them explain how the magicians of Egypt could per- 
form the same acts that Moses did, if ail the acts of the 
latter were miracles, and miracles according to their 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 341 

idea, is something that is contrary to the laws of nature, 
and can only be accomplished by a spécial act of God. 

If Moses, Joshua, or anyone else of those times, had 
put up a telegraph or a railvvay, it would certainly now 
be called a miracle. The only reason why we don't call 
thèse things by that name is, because, we know how 
and by what power it works; hence, the knowledge that 
we hâve of thèse things is what keeps us from the foUy 
of ascribing the unnatural name of miracle to thèse 
natural facts. The same was, and is the case with the 
acts of Moses and others of whom the Bible tells us. 
They who know, like Maimonide, and the like of him, 
who preceeded and succeeded him, including the auth- 
ors of the Talmud, never hâve nor do now, believe in 
miracles, or that which is called miracles, It was 
ignorance that always did and does now believe itwas. 

We hâve strong reason to believe that Moses knew 
the power of nitro-glycerine, he used some of its 
ingrédients in dissolving the golden calf to a powder; 
and if he had made use of that powerful combustion 
upon the Egyptians; or Joshua upon any or ail of the 
thirty-one kings and nations which he had destroyed, 
it would hâve been thought to hâve been the greatest 
miracle of ail; why is that power not considered a mir- 
acle now? But, although we see and know that it is 
foUy to believe in miracles as the ignorant do, never- 
theless, if a power of religious galvanism, or even nitro- 
glycerine should corne or be produced by some one, and 
the power should destroy ignorance, without injuring 
the possessor thereof, we could not help but believe, 
and therefore would willingly believe, that the cause of 



342 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

the act in question was a miracle; for it is the habit- 
uated nature of man to cleave to his old ideas; not from 
or by the force of his reason, but by the force of his 
will. There is no such power in the laws of nature, 
because reason cornes from the soûl; and the soûl is a 
part of God, and God is not governed by the laws of 
nature; hence, reason is not subject to the laws of 
nature, but it is subject to the will; and the man whose 
will is so powerful that reason cannot destroy rt, that 
will cannot be destroyed by the laws of nature without 
destroying the man himself; hence such a power can 
only be produced by a spécial création, aud that would 
be a miracle. 

The division of the Red sea, the manna in the désert, 
the standing still of the sun, in the days of Joshua, 
were no miracles. God knew, at the time that he 
created the world, of everything that He will, or what 
will be needed in the world to carry out his will; He 
hath, therefore, provided the world with eyerything that 
is needed therein. Such things that are in constant 
need, He hath enacted that it shall be constantly pro- 
duced; and such things that there were to be but a 
spécial use for, for a spécial time and for a spécial pur- 
pose when the spécial time came and when the spécial 
need for the spécial thing came, then that spécial thing 
took place. 

There is a constant need for the earth to produce 
végétation and fruit, consequently that power was given 
to the earth when it was created, or on the third day of 
création, or right after the water was gathered from 
upon the earth. 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 343 



There is no continuai nced for the earth to produce 
animais, because the animais reproduce themselves; 
consequently, by a spécial act, on the sixth day of créa- 
tion, the earth was ordained to produce animais that 
spécial time only, and only for the spécial purpose 
of providing the world with animais. And on thatsame 
sixth day, ail the acts, for which there was to be a 
spécial use at some spécial time, were also created; and 
when the spécial time came it took place, and that is 
what wilful ignorance calls miracles. 

If a man should throw a diamond into the X)cean, 
every one who saw him do so would know that the dia- 
mond was in the océan, but no one of ail who saw 
would attempt to dive into the océan for the purpose of 
finding the diamond. Miracles are the black impercept- 
able and incompréhensible océan of ignorance; and during 
ail the time that reason was banished from the mind of 
man; when reason endangered the life of him whopossess- 
ed it; and when to explain a Biblical truth contrary to 
the established and forced idea of the church of Rome, 
was death to him who dared to do so. The few who 
possessed the Biblical truth, hâve drowned it into the 
océan of miracles, and hâve made the Bible and religion 
swim upon the black océan until the time will corne when 
itwillbe safe for reason to return and take possession of 
man's mind, and extricate religion and the Bible from the 
océan of ignorance; and illuminate man's mind to per- 
ceive and understand the truth, which ignorance, until 
now has deprived him of. 

The Jews, who were at the time in question, the only 
unes who possessed amongst them the few, who undcr- 



344 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

stood the Bible; and thèse few were between two fires. 
First, itwas a long established and practiced rule among 
the Jewish teachers, not to teach Biblical knowledge to 
any one who desired to learn it, even to their own nation, 
they only taught that knowledge to such pupils as the 
teachers thought were capable of receiving a thorough 
understanding of it; and the teachers had to be con- 
vinced that the pupil would not use his Biblical under- 
staning for a selfish purpose; and even then, they only 
opened a subject to him, and he had to find out its full 
meaning and conclusion, and the éducation thereof had 
to beiDral. This can enable the reader to form an idea 
of how many there could hâve been who had a perfect 
understanding of the Bible, and what facilities a non- 
Jew had to acquire Biblical knowledge. Jérôme tells 
us, that he had a Jew to teach him who used to come 
to him in secret during the night, because he was afraid 
of the other Jews. And aiter the Roman Church 
assumed to be the sole owner of the Biblical knowledge, 
and everything had to be as the Church said, that was 
the time that the few Jews, who understood the Bible, 
were compelled to create the mysterious océan of mir- 
acles and cast every Biblical truth in it and cause the 
Bible itself to swim upon it. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

HOW AND WHY MOSES SAID OF IIIMSELF THAT 

é 
HE WAS VERY MEEK. 

We have already several times announced that our 
intention and purpose are not to prove the authenticity 
of the Bible; and the reason why it is not is very 
obvions; which is this. If the contents of the Bible 
are true and in accordance with the human understanding 
then it makes no différence who the author of it was; 
and if the contents of the Bible are not true, to know 
who the author of it was, will not make it true; hence, 
the authenticity of the Bible is not a subject in which 
the public is now very much interested; consequently 
in turning our attention now to Paine's "Age of Reason" 
we only propose, for the sake of brevity, to pay 
attention to the question itself, and leave the arguments 
and the conclusions which Mr. Paine draws from the 
subject in question, be unnoticed. 

Mr. Paine, after an elaborate and lengthly argument 
attempting to prove that Moses could not have been the 
author of the five books of the Bible, known as the five 
books of Moses, because it spcaks of Moses, instead of 
he, Moses, being the speaker or writer. It says; God 



346 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

said to Moses; and Moses said to God, instead of say- 
ing, God said to me and I said to God. He, Mr, Paine, 
at the end of his useless arguments, grants unto Moses 
the grammatical right, which every writer has, and 
always had, and which Moses made use of, namely: 
to Write of himself in the third person. But, says Mr. 
Paine, "it can not be admitted as a fact in those books 
that it is Moses who speaks without rendering Moses 
truly ridiculous and absurd. For example, Numbers 
chapter xii: iii says: "Now the man Moses was very 
meek, above ail men whiclf were on the face of the earth;" 
the question then is, how comes Moses to say of him- 
self that he was mecker than any man?" 

We are inclined to believe, that if Mr. Paine had 
honestly intended to convince the readers of his "Age of 
Reason," that Moses was not the author of the books 
in question, he ought not to hâve granted him the gram- 
matical right which he did. And it is certain that if 
he intended to grant Moses the right to speak of him- 
self in the third person, he, Paine, would hâve done 
much better to hâve said nothing about the fact that the 
books of Moses are written in the third person; which 
useless argument occupies about two pages of the "Age 
of Reason." His granting the grammatical right to 
Moses, exposes him to the well founded charge of know- 
ingly and willfully arguing against reason and facts; 
and we are also very much inclined to believe, and which 
we think we will be able to demonstrate, that after he 
had made the admission that he had as much right to 
speak of himself in the third person as any other writer 
has, he ought not to hâve said anything about what 
Moses said of his own meekness. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 347 



Suppose that Moses, instead of writing what he did 
in the Bible, for the purpose of informing the future 
générations of what he did and said, and what was donc 
and said to him, he would hâve authorized M*r. Paine, 
or anyone else to inform the world of the same things 
that are found in the Bible; and Mr. Paine, in speaking 
of Moses and of what he did and of what was donc and 
said to and of him. Mr. Paine would tell us, that Korah, 
a first cousin of Moses, and two hundred and fifty men of 
renown, said unto Moses; "You take too much upon 
you, ail the congrégation are holy, and the Lord is 
among them; why then do you exalt yourself above the 
congrégation?" And that because they, or some one 
of them, said so, Moses prayed unto God, and God 
caused the ground to open itself and swallowed Korah 
and everything he had; and a fire came down and con- 
sumed the two hundred and fifty men. 

And Mr. Paine would tell us, that "Miriam and 
Aaron,"the sister and brother of Moses, "spoke against 
Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had 
married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman," and 
because they said that truth and said, that God spake 
to them also not only unto Moses, which was also true; 
and because they said thèse truths, his sister Miriam 
became leprous and she had to suffer seven days. 
(See Numbers chapter xii.) 

Would not that give to the world reasonable grounds 
to say to Mr. Paine, who is supposed to be telling to the 
world ail thèse, that the Bible does. *'That man Moses, 
whom you, Mr. Paine, praise so much, seems to us 
must hâve been the most vain and arrogant of ail men." 



348 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Would it or would it not, be proper for Mr. Paine to 
say what the Bible does? Would it not be his duty as 
an honest man, to tell if such was the truth? "No gen- 
tlemen" "the man Moses was very meek, above ail men 
that were upon the face of the earth:" and that is just 
what the Bible says; and it is just as proper for the 
Bible to say it as it would hâve been for Mr. Paine. 
Whatever conveys an idea is the first person, he, she, 
or they, to whom the idea is conveyed, are of the second 
person; and he, or it, of whom the idea is convey- 
ed, is of the third person. 

The Bible speaks to us, of Moses; nence the Bible 
is of the first person, we are the second person and 
Moses is of the third person. 

We crédit Mr. Paine with more honesty and gram- 
matical knowledge than the "Age of Reason" entitles 
him to. We hâve several times on former occasions 
said and demonstrated by the "Age of Reason" itself, 
,that its author wrote it for a political purpose and not 
for the purpose of disproving the Bible. Mr. Paine 
wrote for men that were ignorant of what the Bible 
said; and if they knew anything of what it does say, 
they only knew it from having been told by others what 
it says and what the saying means. 

The différence between knowing and understanding 
what the Bible says and what it means from the Bible 
itself, and knowing from what others tell of and explain 
the Bible, is the same différence that is between a post 
and a tree; they are both in the ground; the deeper and 
the longer the former is in the ground the more rotten it 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 349 

becomes; and the deeper and the longer the roots of a 
tree are in the ground, the stouter, the healthier and the 
more productive becomes the tree. 

If Mr. Faine had intended to really question the 
truth of the Bible, and if he had knowledge enough to 
do it, which we are inclined to believe he had, he would 
hâve asked the purpose for which Moses had inserted in 
the Bible about his own meekness, and not question the 
propriety of Moses for his so doing; and as he did not 
raise that question, we will do it and explain the pur- 
pose thereof. But before we do so we will conclude hy 
saying to the "advocates" of the "Age of Reason," in 
the words of its author, in which he had concluded his 
arguments upon the subject in question; we will only 
substitute Paine for Moses, and the "Age of Reason" 
for the Bible. And the advocates of the "Age of Reas- 
on" may now take which side they please, for both 
sides are against them. If Paine wrote the "Age of 
Reason" for the purpose which we say and prove he did, 
then they hâve no right to defame his memory and say 
that he wrote for the purpose that they are using it, and 
if he did write for the purpose that they say he did, 
then it does Mr. Paine no honor, for it shows that he 
was absolutely ignorant of the subject that he wrote 
about, and that what he did know was a knowledge that 
a post has of the ground in which he was driven by the 
force of a beetle. 

The purpose for which Moses had inserted his own 
meekness in the Bible, is very obvions and unquestion- 
ableto every one who knows and understands the Bible: 
it is this # * # ^Yo accuse a man falsely of 



350 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

having donc wrong, is a sin. "Thou shalt not raise a 
false report. " He who causes another to raise a false 
report, and the other does not know that the evil report 
is false, the sin is on him who caused the other to start 
that evil and false report. 

If Moses had not informed us, through the Bible, of 
his meekness, he would hâve caused us to accuse him of 
being vain and revengeful, we would hâve reason to 
accuse him of having had no pity even upon his own 
sister. Suppose the ambassador, of the United States 
or of any other country, who represents the United 
States in another country, should be insulted by the 
people of the country wherein he was sent to répresent 
the United States; would not the government of the 
United States say that the insuit given to their repré- 
sentative is the same as if given to them? is not this the 
rule and practice of and among ail civilized nations? 
What respect would or could the civilized world hâve 
for a nation that allows its représentative in a foreign 
country to be insulted by the people of that country 
in which he was sent to répresent his government. 

The same respect that the world could hâve for a 
nation who does not protect its représentative abroad 
would hâve been the respect that the world could hâve 
formed for God if he had allowed his chief représent- 
ative, Moses, to be insulted by whomsoever and when- 
ever wanted; hence, the honor of God made it indis- 
pensably necessary for Moses to record the punishment 
with which God had punished those who had insulted his 
représentative Moses: and that record would hâve made 
the ignorant accuse Moses of the false and evil accusa- 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 351 

tion of being "vain, arrogant and revengeful." The sin 
of it would hâve been upon Moses, because the record 
of the punishment which he had made, caused them to 
raise the false report; and for the purpose of relievîng 
himself of that sin, he inserted his own meekness, which 
it was as necessary and proper for him to do as it would 
hâve been the honest duty of Mr. Paine, or anyone else, 
whom Moses would hâve authorized to inform thé world 
what the Bible does. "Thou shalt make a battlement 
for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine 
house, if any man fall from thence." (Deut., xxii.) That 
command does not only apply to a roof of a house but 
to everything that a man does, he must always see that 
no one be injured through his actions; he must make a 
battlement to ail thathe does^ so that no one can be injured 
by his acts; hence, Moses inserted his own meekness as 
a protection so that no one should be injured by his 
action of recording the insuit that was given to him, 
and the punishment which his heavenly government 
brought upon those that had insulted him. And that is 
what the Talmud means in saying: "The government 
upon the earth is the same as the government upon 
heaven. " 

The next subject, which Mr. Paine argues very log- 
ically and successfully for the purpose of either demon- 
strating that he did not write the " Age of Reason" for 
the purpose which its advocates claim he did, or for the 
purpose of showing a want of understanding the subject 
of which he spoke. Is Dan, or the place at which Abra- 
ham captured the captors of his nephew Lot, which is 
rccordcd in the i4th chapter of the Rook of Genesis; 
and the city, which the tribeofDan built more than 



352 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



four hundred years after the tirne ihat Abraham had 
pursued the captors of Lot, the building of the said city 
by the Danites, recorded in the î8th chapter of the book 
of Judges, Mr. Paine says: "The city now called New 
York, in America * * * ^^3^3 originally called 

New Amsterdam * * # should, therefore, any 

writing be found, though without date, in which the 
name of New York should be mentioned, it would be 
certain évidence that such a writing could not hâve been 
written before, and must hâve been written after New 
Amsterdam was changed to New York * # j 

now came to the application of those cases (lie names 
another place in France) and to show that there was no 
such place as Dan till many years after the dealh of 
Moses, consequently Moses could not be the writer of 
the book of Genesis, where this account of pursuing 
them unto Dan is given, " 

This would not be good argument, nor positive 
proof that Moses could not be the re-writer of the book 
of Genesis (we say rewriter because the book of Gen- 
èses was in existence before Moses was born,) even if 
Mr. Paine could show that the Bible says that Abraham 
pursued the captors of Lot unto the city of Dan; and 
that that city was the same that the Danites had, about 
four hundred years later destroyed; and that that city 
was called Laish, as the book of Judges says it was, at 
the time that the Danites did destroy it; because it 
would be very reasonable to say, that the name of the 
city was Dan, in the time of Abraham, and that during 
the time that has elapsed from the time that Abraham 
pursued the captors of Lot unto that city, until the capt- 
ure of that place, which was more than four hundred 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 355 

years between. The inhabitants of the place changed 
the name of the city from Dan, as the record of 
Abraham tells, to the name of Laish, which the record of 
the Danites tells us. And as the Bible does not say that 
Abraham pursued the kings, that had capturcd Lot, 
unto the city of Dan; it only says, "And lie pursued 
them until Dan, * * and he smote them and 

pursued them, unto Hobah, which is on the left of 
Damascus." And history tells that there is a river 
south of Damascus which is called Dan; hence Abra- 
ham had pursued the kings, who had captured Lot, up 
to the river Dan; and the advocates of the "Age of 
Reason" may either contemplate upon Mr. Paine's want 
of knowledge about the subject he spoke of, or admire his 
ability of imitating the boy who caught a "fire fly" and 
thought it was a "star. " 

The question which the author of the "Age of 
Reason" asks, how Moses knew the time that the Israél- 
ites ate manna, would hâve enhanced the stock of 
Biblical knowledge that the querist seems to hâve 
possessed, and it would hâve been more honorable for 
him and would also hâve aided his political purpose bet- 
ter if he had left that question alone, for that question 
exposes him to the well founded charge of insincerity. 
In speaking of that question he says: it is said in Exo- 
duSj chapter xvi: xxxiv: "And the children of Israël did 
eat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did 
eat manna until they came unto the borders of the land 
of Canaan." 

"AU that I mean to show by this is," says Mr. Paine, 
"that it is not Moses that could write that account, 

-22 



24 



354 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

because the account extends itself beyond the life and 
time of Moses. Moses, according to the Bible, died in 
the wilderness, and never came to the borders of the land 
of Canaan." 

And every one whoever read or who knows any- 
thing at ail of the Bible, knows that Moses died in the 
land of Moab and was buried there, and that he went 
up to the top of Pisgah, which is by Jéricho, and saw the 
whole land of Canaan, even from Dan, which was the 
northern extremity of the land, to the utmost sea, which 
was the southern extremity of the same; and from "Jér- 
icho" unto "Zoar" (see the last chapter of Deut.); hence 
Moses not only was on the borders of Canaan but saw 
the whole land. And it cannot be said that Mr. Paine 
was ignorant of what the last chapter of Deut. says, 
because he had criticised that chapter and ridiculed 
what it said in that chapter about the death of Moses. 
We ascribe that wilful misrepresentation to the political 
purpose which he desired that his "Age of Reason" 
should accomplish. It is for them who claim that Mr. 
Paine wrote his "Age of Reason" for an anti-religious 
purpose to explain the cause, if there is any other cause 
than that which we ascribe for that wilful misstating of 
facts. 

Neither can it be said that Mr. Paine did not know 
that the land of Moab and the land Boshan, the nations 
of which lands Moses had conquered, and gave that 
land to two and one-half tribes of Israël, and in which 
land the Israélites had lived for months and months 
before Moses died, and consequently they were, during 
thèse months, living in a land that was "inhabited. " 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 355 

And as the verse that Mr. Paine quotes says that "the 
Israélites did eat manna until they came to a land that 
was inhabited," leaves no ground to ascribe error to Mr. 
Paine in asking the question how Moses knew what the 
Israélites did eat after they came to a land that was in- 
habited. He not only was with them in that land, but 
conquered that land for them, as well as the flocks of 
the nations that had inhabited that land, and the flocks 
of the Midianites, which subject Mr. Paine criticises, 
and which is the subject that précèdes the manna ques- 
tion; and if thèse subjects had been in the first part of 
the "Age of Reason," it might be said that Mr. Paine 
made an error, because he wrote that part of "Reason" 
without having had a Bible before him, as he says in 
the préface of that book. But the subjects which we 
herein name are in the second part of the book in ques- 
tion, and in the préface of which the author announces 
that he has a Bible before him and that he will now 
show wonders; hence, no error can be ascribed. Will 
the pretended worshipers of the "Age of Reason," 
explain the gross and unpardonable false statements of 
the "Age of Reason." 

The manna kept coming down until the morning 
of the first passover that the Israélites were in the land 
of Canaan, as we are told in the fifth chapter of Joshua, 
but the Israélites stopped depending upon the manna 
for their food during the time that they were in the land 
of Moab, though it kept coming down the same as it 
used to during the time that they were in the wilderness. 



35^ A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGIITS, 



CHAPTER XXX. 

THE DEATH AND GRAVE OF MOSES. 

Mr. Paine, as well as other anti-Biblical writers and 
orators, mockingly bring up what the Bible tells about 
the death and grave of Moses, and by which they ridi- 
cule the ideas that Moses himself had recorded the 
manner of his death and of his grave and that no one 
unto this day knows his grave; and they ail use it as 
undisputed and démonstrative proof that the Bible is 
a fictitious book. 

As for their scoffing at the idea that Moses wrote 
the manner of his own death and of his grave, we can 
simply say that they ridicule themselves and not the 
Bible; because the Bible does not say that Moses wrote 
about his own death and grave; hence they only scoffat 
the nonsensical, unreasonable. unnatural and groundless 
belief and idea that Moses himself did write the subject 
in question. 

It is true the Bible does say that Moses did write 
that part of the Bible that is called the five books of 
Moses, that gives us no more reason to say and believe 
that Moses himself wrote and described his death and 
grave than it is to say and believe that Joshua recorded 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 357 



hîs own death in his book of the Bible; or to say that 
Samuel had done so, because his death is also recorded 
in his book of the Bible. 

And to say, that because the death of Moses is 
recorded in the books that he wrote is a démonstrative 
proof that Moses was not the author of thèse books, is 
something about which we beg leave to differ. We say 
and believe, and reason will, we hâve no doubt, testify 
and demonstrate the truth of what we say and believe, 
that if the books of Moses, and the same is applicable 
to the whole Bible, had been a fîctitious history, or if it 
had been written by a fîctitious author who had endeav- 
ored and had succeeded to pass it off as a true record 
and history of the facts narrated therein, he, the fîc- 
titious historian, would, for the purpose that he should 
not be detected, keep out from the work ail things that 
would lead to his being detected, such, for example, 
as the death of Moses; he would probably hâve said 
that Moses did not die at ail, he would hâve said that 
he went up to heaven alive, or something of that sort 
which does not show on its face such intrinsic impossi- 
bilities as that of describing the manner of his own 
death and of not knowing his own grave, neithcr the 
one who buried him; and which was written by Joshua 
the same as the death of the latter was written by the 
one that succeeded him. 

The questions, which are legitimate, proper and 
reasonable to ask about the subjcct in question, and 
which, we believe, are interesting to the friends and stu- 
dents of the Bible, and which we will, after we hâve 
relieved the subject and the Bible from the erroneous 



358 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ideas of ignorance and the scoffing of infidels, or the 
would be such; ask and explain the several legitimate 
questions appertaining to the subject before us. 

First: — Why did Joshua write the death of Moses? 
There were two causes for it. One cause was that the 
IsraeHtes looked upon Moses as upon a deity. When 
he did not corne down from Mount Sinai as soon as they 
thought he would they wanted to substitute a power in 
his place, they, the Israélites, said unto Aaron "Make 
us gods which shall go before us for we do not know 
what became of the man Moses that brought us out of 
the land of Egypt. " The word man is hère translated 
from the Hebrew word "Ish," and that word means a 
godly man, and it can be perceived from the verse that 
we hâve hère quoted that they looked upon Moses as 
the one who brought them out of the land of Egypt. 
Moses had worked very hard and diligently during the 
forty years that he was with them in the wilderness to 
make them know theGod of their forefathers, Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, the one who brought them out of the 
land of Egypt, and to wean them ofif from the service 
of and faith in other deities, and if the death of Moses 
and his burial had not been recorded in the books of 
Moses, the Israélites would hâve believed even unto 
this day that Moses went up into heaven alive, the same 
as it is believed (by some) that Elijah did; and the 
resuit would hâve been that the Israélites would hâve 
worshiped Moses as a deity; hence the work of Moses 
would not hâve been perfected, and the title of a work 
belongs to him who perfects the work; and he that per- 
fects the work is also entitled to the recompensation for 
the work, as is the case with the bones of Joseph. In 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 359 

Exodus, chapter xiii: xix, it says that"Moses took the 
bones of Joseph with him," which was in accordance 
with the last wish of Joseph. But Moses did not enter 
into the land and consequently could not accomplish the 
request of Joseph; hence the title to the action is given 
to the Israélites, who took the bones after Moses died 
and brought them into the land of Israël, which gives 
them the crédit of taking the bones out of Egypt, as is 
recorded in the last chapter of Joshua which reads thus: 
"And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israël 
(not Moses) brought up out of the land of Egypt they 
buried in Shechem. " 

The death of Moses was necessary that it should be 
in his book, so that it should be known that he was a 
human being, and if that had been done by Joshua in 
his own book he would hâve been entitled to the title 
of the work that Moses had done, but did not finish; 
and for the purpose of not depriving Moses of his hard 
earned honest title Joshua had perfected that of Moses 
for Moses by recording the indespensible record of the 
death of Moses and the manner in which he died, and 
commenced his own book with the record of the same 
subject. 

We hâve on a former occasion, when we were 
învestigating the meaning of what God said of Adam, 
that if he, Adam, will eat of the tree of life *'he will 
become as one of us," we hâve there demonstrated that 
if Adam had known of the death of the body, or how 
to separate the soûl from the body the same as we do, 
that he would hâve done so; but he had not seen the 
death of the body; hence he knew nothing of it. And 



360 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



it is as impossible for us to know, understand and 
explain the death of Moses who Avas not an" Adam," but 
was an "Isli," and such a one that no other one like him 
ever rose again in Israël; consequently we can know no 
more of his death than Adam could tell of the death 
that we ail know so well of, before he saw men die^ or 
dead men. To understand the death of Moses, or the 
departure of Elijah from the face of the earth, we must 
be what thèy were, "Ishim," (the plural of Ish,) and 
that noun désignâtes angels. It is a thème that is 
higher than the swift wings of our mind can raise us up 
from the position that we men occupy while we are 
upon the face of the earth; and not only this, but 
language is unable to supply the words to express the 
dreamy-like thoughts that great and eminent men hâve 
had about that thème. 

It may indeed be very proper to ask who buried 
Moses; for the Bible says: "And he buried him in a 
Valley in the land of Moab." But that question is 
easier asked than answered. 

He went up to the top of the mount "Nebo," and 
was buried in an indefinite valley in the land of Moab. 
The Bible does not say that he went down from mount 
Nebo. It says he went up upon the mountain and 
from thence God showed him the land, and there he 
died. (See fifth verse of the last chapter of Deut.) If 
he died on the mountain, then who took him to and 
buried him in the valley? It definitely says that he was 
buried in a valley. It cannot be reasonably said 
that it means the valley of Shittim, where the Israélites 
were, and from whence he must hâve started to go up 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 361 

upon the mountain, becanse some one of the Israélites 
would probably hâve secn him coming down. We will, 
therefore, for the présent leave that thème and tiirn our 
attention to the disappearance of prophct EHjah, and see 
Avhat Elisha says about the subject in question who 
Avas with Ehjah at the time in question. The subject of 
Elijahs disappearance from the earth is coïncident with 
the death of Moses. 

"And it came to pass when the Lord would take up 
Elijah into hca\en by a whirlwind" * * Elijah 

said to Elisha,: "tarry hère, for the Lord has sent me to 
Bethel. " Elisha swore that he would not leave him. "I 
will not leave thee;" and they went to Bethel together. 
The sons of the prophets that were at Bethel asked 
Elisha if he knew that God would take his master from 
him to-day; "Yea I know it; hold ye your peace," said 
Elisha to them in answer to what they, the prophets, 
had asked him. At Bethel the Master told his pupils 
that he, the former, had to go to Jéricho, and asked the 
pupil to remain at Bethel, which Elisha again refused 
and swore that he would not leave him, Elijah, and they 
went together to Jéricho; and the prophets of the last 
named place hâve also asked Elisha whether he knew 
that his master will that day be taken from him, and he 
gave them the same answer that he gave to the prophets 
of Bethel. From there they went across the Jordan, 
Elijah again asked Elisha to remain at Jéricho, which he 
refused to do and crossed the Jordan with Elijah, and 
the prophets of Jéricho "went and stood to view afar off." 
And after they had crossed the Jordan Elijah said unto 
Elisha, "ask what shall I do for thee before I am taken 
away from thee, and Elisha said: "I pray thee let a 
double portion of thy spirit be upon me", and he, Elijah 



302 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



said: "thou hast asked a hard thing, nevertheless if thou 
see me when I am taken away from thee it shall be so 
unto thee, but if not it shall not be. " "And it came to 
pass as they went on and talked, behold there appeared 
a chariot of fire and horses of fire and parted them 
assunder and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into 
heaven." The fifty prophets who stood from afar to 
view, who knew that Elijah would be taken from the 
earth that day, went to look for the body of Elijah, 
though Elisha told them they would not fînd it, which 
they did not. They knew the body did not and could not 
go up to heaven; hence they thought that they might 
find it in the mountains. (See Second Kings, chapter ii.) 

Elijah went from Gilgal into the very place where 
Moses died or was taken from the earth. Moses went 
up on the mountain opposite to Jéricho. And Elijah 
came down from Jéricho to the Jordan, crossed it and 
came to the same side of the stream that Moses was. 
For Elisha to see what became of him (Elijah) he 
needed a spirit that was twice as great as the spirit that 
Elijah had. The chariot of fire and the horses of fire 
which Elisha saw was a visionary sight, not a reality ; con- 
sequently, if Elisha and fifty other prophets who knew 
that Elijah would be taken away from them that day, 
and had watched to see how he would be taken and 
where he would be taken to, and they did not hâve the 
power to see, neither was their prophétie minds strong 
enough to understand what became of the body of 
Elijah, is a sufficient guarantee that it is useless for any 
man who is not an "Ish," the same as Moses and Elijah 
were, to attempt to say anything or even think of say- 
ing anything in the way of explaining the departure of 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 363 

Moses and of Elijah from the face of the earth, or how 
their soûls became separated from their bodies. 

The "Talmud" says that the grave of Moses is one 
of the things that were created at "twiHght" on the 
sixth day of création before the eve of the "Sabbath." 
The Word twihght implies obscurity or incomprehensi- 
bility, and the word Sabbath implies that it is time 
for the mind to rest when it reaches that far; we will, 
therefore, stop hère and rest from that subject until the 
time that our soûl shall émerge from the obscurity of 
the body, at which time we shall be able to see and 
understand that which at présent our mind, nor the mind 
of any man, can begin to think about; and we leave 
that subject till then and will turn our attention to the 
sun and moon standing still in the time of Joshua. 



364 A COLLECTION OP' THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

THE SUN AND MOON STANDING STILL IN THE 
TIME OF JOSHUA. 

The several reasons which the anti-Bible writers pro- 
duce for the purpose of showing that the BibHcal account 
of the Sun and moon standing still, as related in the 
book of Joshua, is not true, are thèse. First, they say: 
Joshua ought to hâve commanded the earth to stand 
still, not the sun and moon. They say the sun and 
moon always stand still it is the earth that moves. 
That, they say, shows that the writer did not even know 
the fact that it is the earth that moves and not the sun 
and the other luminary. 

In answer to this, we say that the language in which 
the act is related or recorded, does not prove that 
Joshua, or the WTiter in question, did not know that the 
earth moves and that the luminary planets are station- 
ary. We seem to know, and believe beyond a doubt, 
that the earth moves and that the sun stands; never- 
theless the language which we use or the words which 
we use when we speak of the same subject misrep- 
resent our knowledge and belief. We don't say the earth 
turned away from the sun, which would be in accord- 
ance with our knowledge and belief, we instead of it say; 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 365 

"the sun went down," which implies that we believe 
that the sun moves and not the earth; and it is the same 
with the subjcct in question, Joshua could hâve known 
and did know better and was surer than we are that the 
earth moves and not the sun; nevertheless he had to 
make use of the same words that we now use to 
express our thoughts and knowledge in the manner 
and style of the prevailing language of the time. 

If Joshua had told the Israélites that he made the 
earth stand still they v/ould either hâve laughed at him 
because thcy saw and believed that the earth always 
stands still, or they could not know what he, Joshua, 
meant by saying or commanding the earth to stand still. 

Secondly, they say: If the earth did stand still then 
one half.of the world would hâve wondered why it did 
not become night or why the sun did not go down, and 
the other half would hâve wondered why it did not 
become day or why the sun did not rise. And they say 
that we would hâve had some account of it in some other 
history than the Bible. 

And in answer to thèse we say that they who reason 
as we hâve described, scem not to know that clocks and 
watches were invented long after the time of Joshua. 
Forty years ago we hâve known hundreds of men in 
Russia who were of différent âges, from children up to 
gray-headed grandfathers, who could not tell the time 
by looking at a clock; and there can be no doubt that 
in the time of Joshua there could hâve been very few, 
if an}% and we are inclincd to bclicve that there were 
none, who could tell the time b,y hours as it can be told 



366 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

now; and if the day was prolonged an hour or even two 
hours it could not attract gênerai attention without the 
use or démonstration of a clock as such a thing would 
nowbe; and the halfof the world thatwaited for the sun 
to rise or for whom the night was longer than usual, 
could know nothing of it because they were asleep 
and could not see the sun; hence, they had noth- 
ing from or by which they could calculate the time; 
and as for what, they say; that if it had been a fact 
it would hâve been recorded in some other history 
besides the Bible. We say; that we hâve no history 
that was written at the time in question besides the 
Bible, and what we hâve can not be relied upon the 
same as upon modem historiés; and we will hère sub- 
stantiate what we say by ancient history itself, and we 
will do so for the purpose of showing that they, who 
apparently seem to lay great stress and considérable 
faith in ancient history and which are the same that dis- 
pute the historical account of the Bible, don't seem to 
hâve more knowledge of the origin of what is called 
ancient history than they hâve of the Bible. 

About ail the ancient history that we now hâve is 
what had been transmitted to us by the Greeks and 
written mostly by Grecian writers, of which Herodotus 
is the most ancient writer, and he existed thousands of 
years after the time about which he wrote; and nearly 
ail the historians that hâve succeeded him, Grecians as 
well as others, denied what he said and hâve contradict- 
ed what he said. 

He wrote what he called a history of Egypt. Ma- 
netho was an Egyptian, and he wrote the Egyptian his- 
tory in the language of the Greeks for no other purpose 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 367 

than for the purpose of convincing the Greeks of the 
falsehoods and lies that he wrote in his book of fables 
and fancy which he called history. 

The same writer, Herodotus, also wrote the history 
of Cyrus; and Xenophon, who was a Greek, and fought 
under the younger Cyrus in the Persian Army, and who 
also wrote a history of Cyrus the First, contradicted 
Herodotus in what he said about Cyrus the same as 
Manetho does in what he says about Egypt; and as 
Josephus says, he Herodotus, as well as ail the Grecian 
historians, even in writing the history of their own 
country, contradict one another and Josephus after 
naming some historians says: "Or after what Ephorus 
demonstrates Hellanicus to hâve told lies in the greatest 
part of his history, as does Timeus in like manner to 
Ephorus, and the succeeding do to Timeus, and ail the 
latter writers do to Herodotus," And to a good many 
others which that undisputed historian, Josephus, there 
names. 

"And now what need I say (continues the same his- 
torian) any more about particular cities and smaller 
places, while in the most approved writers of the expé- 
dition of the Persians and of the actions which were 
therein performed there are as great différences! Nay, 
Thucydides himself is accused by some of writing what 
is false, although he seems to hâve given us the exactest 
history of the affairs of his own time." 

And that is what everyone who had studied the 
writings of the Grecian writers called history and of 
what we hâve some of it, in modem languages. 

Charles Rollins, in speaking of the history of Cyrus, 



368 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

as given by Xenophon and Herodotus says: "Froiii' 
whence then could so great a différence be between 
thèse two historians? Herodotus himself explains it to 
us in the very place where he gives the account of 
Cyrus' birth * * # ^^^ ^j^^ ^^ 1^-^ (^g^th 

* * * Herodotus followed that which pleased 

him best, for it appears that he was fond of extraordi- 
nary and vvonderful things, and was very credulous." 

Suppose that it would be found in the writings of the 
Greeks, which is callcd history, something that would 
go to prove that the sun did stand still, as we are told in 
the book of Joshua, and that some commentator or 
believer in the Bible, would refer to what it is supposed 
was found in the writings of the Greeks, would not the 
anti-Bible men say,"what could the Greeks know what 
did or did not happen in the times of Joshua? The 
Greeks kept no records of their own doings, even the 
Athenians, who were the most learned and most civili- 
zcd, had no records of their own doings in the time of 
Joshua. The most ancient writings that the Athenians 
had and claimed were the laws concerning murder writ- 
ten by Draco, who lived in the time of Cyrus and Daniel, 
which must hâve been about one thousand years after 
Joshua; how could they (the Athenians) know anything 
about what had happened in the time of Joshua?" Would 
they not say the same that they say of the flood that 
took place in the time of Noah, which is mentioned by 
several of the ancient writers of history. They say that 
it is a story told by ail the pagan writers, and the Jews 
borrowed the ideas of the flood from them. 

Oh, consistancy! thou art an ornament which false- 
hood cannot wear nor make use of. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 369 

And in returning to our subject we say: If Joshua 
would hâve said that he had made the sun and moon 
stand still, the unanswerable question would hâve been; 
how could a man do it? but as he tells us that he prayed 
unto God, and that it was God who made them stand still, 
is not and cannot be a question about it. It is true, it 
may be asked, and is asked^ that the velocity of the 
earth keeps the inhabitants thereof on it, and that if the 
earth should stop revolving some of the inhabitants of 
the earth would fall into apparent endless space, and 
that would hâve been the resuit if the earth had stop- 
ped revolving in the days of Joshua; and in answer to 
that question we say that there was no need for the 
earth to stop her motion, ail that was needed was for 
the earth to reverse her course. It is said that the earth 
revolves on her axis. We will take a grind-stone for 
illustration. 

Suppose a very large grind-stone turned as rapid as 
can be made to turn by the strongest steam power, and 
by the touch of a screw or the shift of a belt the motion 
or the course of the grind-stone could be changed with- 
out stopping or decreasing the power which makes the 
stone revolve, the motion of the- stone was revtrsed; 
say that it usually revolves from the power and it was 
made to revolve tow^ard the power, or instead of turning 
from east to west it was made to turn from west to east, 
that would not stop the velocity of the stone; the 
change would cause a sudden jerk but it would not stop 
the velocity. That, or the like of it, may hâve been 
and could hâve been with the motion of the earth at the 
time in question the motion was turned. Suppose that 
the day in question was prolonged four hours, ail that 



25 



370 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

was needed was for the earth to turn two hours toward 
the sun and then reverse the motion again, the change 
of the motion of the earth probably would or did cause 
a jerk which was of the nature of an earthquake; hence 
we see no impossibility in what Joshua tells us of the 
day having been prolonged since it was God who caused 
it, and it was not as hard for Him to do it as it is for a 
man who turns a common grind-stone by a crank to 
turn it toward him or from him and to reverse the 
motion when he (who turns the stone) chooses. We 
will now turn our attention to the book of Samuel, or 
to that part upon which W. Robertson Smith, M. A., 
has founded his "Twelve Lectures on BibHcal Criticism. " 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 3/1 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

W. ROBERTSON SMITH'S BLUNDERS ABOUT SAUL, DAVID 

AND JONATHAN, OR THE LIFE OF HIS 

TWELVE LECTURES. 

We hâve no désire nor intention to review the "Twelve 
Lectures" in question, nor to dispute what the lecturer 
said, neither do we doubt that the lecturer is a man ot 
very great érudition, that is, if the word érudition 
means the knowledge of books or what other men hâve 
said; without caring to know the meaning of what the 
others hâve said and without investigating whether it 
was right or not, what the others hâve said. Simply to 
know that others hâve said so, and use the sayings of 
others whenever and for whatever the ernditionist 
wishes; then Mr. Smith is beyond the least shadow of 
a doubt, a very great eruditionist; he certainly contains 
in him more books than an ordinary book-case can hold, 
but, if he understands ail the books that he has in him 
the same as his lectures show that he does the Bible, 
then he must hâve the same understanding of the books 
he speaks of and which he has read as a book-case could 
hâve if the same books would hâve been kept init. Mr. 
Théodore Tilton said: "It is no more proof that a man 
who has read a great many books is a man of under- 
standing, than it is a proof that a vacuum, where a lot 



372 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

of books were kept, is a place of understanding. " And 
Mr. W. R. Smith demonstrates that Mr. Tilton said an 
axiom and not a theory, as some people had thought at 
the time when he said it. 

Mr Smith could hâve used ail the books that he had 
in him, except the Bible, in any way and for any pur- 
pose that he had chosen and had seen fit, we would 
hâve never questioned his right nor his ability. The 
Bible is a book that belongs to everybody; hence it 
belongs to us also, and whatever his object and purpose 
might hâve been for throwing away his part of the Bible, 
does not and cannot efifect our rights in the same Book; 
and, inasmuch as we only wish to protect our own rights, 
we will say nothing about his "Twelve Lectures" except 
the parts that are based upon the sacrifice of the Bible. 

In one of his lectures he says that Isaiah and the 
other prophets did not know of the book of Deuteron- 
omy, of which we will say nothing about it hère, because 
in the explanation which we hâve made of the law of 
sacrifices, we hâve there plainly shown how much the 
lecturer knows about the law of sacrifices, and of what 
the prophets meant with what they hâve said against 
sacrifices; and the only thing that we will now hâve 
need to dispute with him, is, what he says about Saul,, 
David and Jonathan, and about the stone behind which 
David was hid, which forms the foundation and subject 
of his lectures; and if we should succeed in our endeavor 
to extract thèse from his lectures, which we hâve reason 
to believe that we shall, then ail his "Twelve Lectures" 
will be left without a subject and without Life; and that 
will be another démonstration that what Mr. Tilton said 
was an axiom. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 373 

Mr. Smith, for the purpose of showing that tlie 
Hebrew text of the Bible was clianged since it was 
translatée into the Grecian language, by which he 
attempts to diminish the faith that people hâve in the 
Bible, says: (in his Fourth Lecture, page 93) "A He- 
brew Word thus bodily transferred to the pages of the 
Septuagint, and yet differing from what we now read in 
Hebrew Bibles, constitute a varions reading which can 
not be explained. An example of this is found in 
First Samuels XX: xxx. In the Hebrew text (verse 
xix) Jonathan directs David to be in hiding "by the 
stone Ezel," and at verse xli, when the plan agreed on 
was carried out. David, at a given signal, émerges 
"from beside the Negeb." "The Negeb (says Mr. 
Smith) is a district south of Judea, remote from the 
city of Saiil, in the neighborhood of which the events 
of our chapter took place; and the attempt of the 
English version to smooth away the difficulty is not sat- 
isfactory either in point of grammar or of sensé; but 
the Septuagmt makes the whole thing clear. At verse 
xix the Greek reads; "beside yonder ergab," and at 
verse xli David arose from the "ergab." "ergab (says 
the lecturcr) is the transcription in the Greek of a rare 
Hebrew word, signifying a cairn of rude monument of 
stone." 

Before we commence to dispute anything that Mr. 
Smith says, in what we hâve heretofore copied from his 
lecture, wx must admit that the word "ergab" is, as he 
says, a very ^^rare^^ word in the Hebrew language, so 
much so that we hâve examined several Hebrew lex- 
icons and did not find the word "ergab," and we hâve 
asked several very eminent Hebrew scholars and none 
of them could tell us anything of the word "ergab," 



374 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 



spelled as the word in question is spelled in the copy of 
lectures in question which \ve hâve before us; and as 
Mr. Smith is a Master of Arts, he probably has the art 
of inventing words as he needs them; this is the only 
way by which we can account for the rare word "ergab" 
in the Hebrew language, and it may indeed be asked 
how does Mr. Smith come to the conclusion that"ergab" 
is a Hebrew word, for he himself, says in continuation 
after the words, that the word "ergab signifies a rude 
monument of stone, which does not occur elsewhere;" 
if that word does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew 
language, and he, the M. A., only saw that word in the 
Greek version of the Bible, how does he know that the 
word "egarb" is a word that belongs or ever did belong 
to the Hebrew language? It is true (says he) that the 
word "egarb" does not occur elsewhere except as a 
proper name "Argob," but neither can we find the 
word "Argob" in the Hebrew Lexicon; and the only 
reason, and which is the very best reason, why the word 
"negeb" and not the word "ergob" stands in the Hebrew 
text of the Bible in the place in question is, because the 
word * 'ergab" never was nor is now a Hebrew word; 
and when Mr. Smith will show us that we are in error, 
we will then hâve time to convince him that "ergab" and 
"argob" cannot signify the same thing in the Hebrew 
language. 

Let us now see w^hat the Masterly Art of Mr. Smith 
makes of the word "negeb," which is an indisputed 
Hebrew word but cannot be used for a noun, as Mr. 
Smith uses it in the place in question, any more than 
the word south can be used for a noun; it is true that 
the word south as well as the word "negeb" are both 
idéal nouns, but they are not names of visible objects 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 375 

behind which or within which anyone can hide the same 
as behind a wall, or within a house, or behind a rock. 
The Master of Art says: David, at a given signal, 
émerges '-from behind the ''negeb," and that **negeb" 
is a district in the south of Judea. We honestly believe 
that a man needs not to be encumbered with the title of 
Master of Arts for the purpose of being able to perceive 
and explain to others that the man who pubHcly says to 
the world that the word "negeb," in the xli verse 
the XX chapter of First Samuel, in the Hebrew text 
of the Bible, which is the word in question, signifies a 
place; either that man who says so, knows but little or 
nothing of the Hebrew language, orhe had only said so 
because he wanted to accomplish a certain purpose of 
his own, and had therefore, knowingly and willingly 
misstated and misinformed the world; and let us now see 
if we can demonstrate to others what we said and what 
we do honestly believe. 

Mr. Smith, in the fore part of what we hâve copied 
from his lecture, says: "Jonathan directs David to be 
in hiding by the stone "Ezel." He there translates the 
word "by" from the Hebrew word "Azal" pronounced 
aitzel, which is a very proper translation; and the same 
word "Azal," stands in the Hebrew text, in verse xli, with 
the préposition "from," which in the Hebrew language 
is designated by the letter ^'m" prefixed to the word 
"maitzel" which is in the Hebrew language used to ex- 
press the same idea that the words "from the neighbor- 
hood" expressed in the English language: but Mr. 
Smith translates the word ^*mazl" or "maitzel" into the 
English words "from beside," the letter "m" désignâtes 
from, the word "azl" désignâtes "by," as he, Mr. Smith, 
had translated that same word in the xix verse of the 



3/6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

same chapter and subject in question. The object that 
Mr. Smith had in view in translating the Hebrew word 
"azl" into the word "beside," is very obvious, and any- 
one who reads that part of his lecture and the chapter 
in question, can without trouble or art perceive his ob- 
ject. He wanted to show the incredibinty of the Bible 
by showing that it was agreed between Jonathan and 
David that the latter should hide himself behind the 
stone "azl" (not ezl as Mr. Smith makes it,) and that was 
near the city where Saul lived, and in verse xli it says, 
(or Mr. Smith makes it say,) that David came out "from 
behind the Negeb," which phraseology shows that thn 
word "ngb" as it is in the Hebrew, or "negeb" as it is 
pronounced, means a place, and that gives him the 
chance to smuggle in his newly invented Hebrew word 
"ergab, which he himself says that he only found that 
word in the Greek version of the Bible, and that he can 
find it no where in the Hebrew language, but he does it 
by exposing himself to the well founded charge of be- 
ing absolutely ignorant of the Hebrew language, or 
that he had done what he did about the subject in ques- 
tion, knowingly and willingly and for a corrupt purpose. 
And whether there is a place in the south of Judea that 
is or was called Negeb, as Mr. Smith says, or there is 
not, though that is very foreign to our purpose, never- 
theless we will demonstrate to the reader that the tribe 
of Benjamin had as much in his domain, of what Mr. 
Smith calls a district in Judea, as the tribe of Judah 
had, which we will do as soon as we can dispose of the 
question as to the meaning of the word "ngb," or 
"negeb" which signifies south, as that word is rendered 
in the English version of the Bible in the place in ques- 
tion, which reads thus: "David arose of a place towards 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 3/7 

south:" but the most unfortunate thing for Mr. Smith's 
theory is, the fact that the narrative in question does 
not say that David did hide himself behind the "stone 
*' Azl" or "Ezl. " The xxiv verse of the chapter in question 
says; "So David hid himself in the FIELD;" hence, it is as 
plain as twice two are four, that Jonathan directed David 
to hide himself in the field in the neighborhood of the 
stone "Azel," Jonathan, when lie was shooting the ar- 
rows, which was the agreed signal, was on one side, very 
probable on the north side of the stone, and David 
came out to him from the south side of the same stone; 
that was, is and always will be, the meaning of the nar- 
rative in question, though Mr. Smith succeeds in smug- 
gling in ail the Greek words which he does not under- 
:stand, into the Hebrew language, and transform the 
■\vord south or the word "Negeb," which is the same as 
south, into a place in Judea. 

Of ail the learning that Mr. Smith is master of, and 
which he shows off the most in his lectures in question, 
is what the following lines designate. 

"For indécision brings its own delays, 
And days are lost lamenting lost days, 
Are y ou in earnest? Seize this very minute 
What you can do, or deera you can, begin it. 
Boldness has genius, power and magie in it." 

Mr. Smith must hâve recited the above lines when 
lie was a school boy, (we fînd them in a school book,) 
and was probably rewarded by his teacher or his par- 
ents for the manner in which he recited them, and that 
may hâve been the cause which induced him to make 
himself master of the contents thereof and practiced 
during his life time what they instruct; consequently, 



37S A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

the instruction which thèse lines give, forms the most 
conspicuous part of Mr. Smith 's "Twelve Lectures". If he 
had not beheved that he is "master," and "dreamed" 
that he had the "power" of "magie" or magical art in 
him, he would not hâve attempted to smuggle in Greek 
words into the Hebrew language, and would not hâve 
attempted at the "very minute" whcn the professor's 
chair was taken from him, take the word south, or 
("Ngb" in Hebrew) which simply means opposite from 
north, which exists in every place upon the face of 
the globe, and out of the ail, make but one district in a 
part of the domain that belonged to the tribe of Judea. 
That is a far greater magical art than rolling up the 
whole land of Canaan or Israël, and place it under the 
five or six feet of ground that Jacob occupied or laid 
upon when he was dreaming that the angels were com- 
ing down from heaven on a ladder that stood upon the 
ground, which we mentioned in our chapter of miracles. 
Nothing else than "boldness" and the mastery of the 
magical arts, ever would or could attempt to perform 
what Mr. Smith did attempt to perform in his "Twelve 
Lectures" but failed, and the cause that made him fail 
is the same through which the excited bull, in Westches- 
ter county, New York failed to stop the train, which 
was, when railroads first came into use and animais 
were not used to the whistling of the locomotives and 
ringing of bells. The bull had "boldness" enough to 
attempt to stop the progress of the train by placing 
himself with his horns against the locomotive. The 
farmer, the owner of the animal, saw it, and ran to save 
his animal, but by the time he came to the place, the 
engine, which it is needless to say, was already the un- 
disputed victor, and went on and left the bull dead, to 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 379 

whom the farmer said: "I hâve ahvays gloried in yoiir 
boldness, and do so now, but I must curse your judg- 
ment." 

The friends of Mr. Smith, who hâve ahvays gloried 
in his boldness, will now hâve to say to him about his 
judgment, what the farmer said to his dead buU about 
the judgment of the latter. Mr. Smith had boldness 
enough to say, that "Negeb" is a district in the south of 
Judea, but if one "Negeb" is one district, then eight 
"Negebs" must mean eight districts; especially when 
each "Negeb" is located in a différent locality, as the 
eight "Negebs" or souths, that are mention'ed in the 
fîrst eight verses of the xv chapter of Joshua, in which 
chapter the boundaries and description of the domain 
of the tribe of Judah are given, and in which chapter 
the names of sixty-eight cities are given, and amongst 
which the word "Negeb" is not found. 

And the xviii chapter of Joshua, from verse xi to xxi, 
in which the boundaries of the land of the tribe of Ben- 
jamin are given, hâve also eight "Negebs" or souths, the 
same as in the land of Judea, and among the cities that 
are there named, the name of "Gebeah," the city that 
Saul lived in is given; hence the magical district, which 
the boldness of Mr. Smith lias lately discovered, and 
which he has only formed in his own mind, was or could 
hâve been as far or as near from the city of Saul, or 
"from the place where the narrative of our chapter took 
place," as it was from any place in Judea. 

And in speaking of the eighteenth verse of the four- 
teenth chapter of First Samuel, which tells of Saul tell- 
ing the priest Ahiah to "bring hither the Ark of God/* 



380 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGIITS, 

Mr. Smith says: No! His boldness, (not his knowl- 
edge) makes him say: "But there are other différences 
behind. The Ark was then at "Gebeah of Kirjath 
Jearim," quite a différent place frorn Gebeah of Ben- 
jamin. " 

We shall now ask the Master of Arts, where he 
obtained his information or knowledge that the Gebeah 
of Benjamin is not the Gebeah of Kirjath Jearim, for it 
is only his "boldness" that makes him say so. If he 
does not know enough of the Bible to know that in the 
fourtecnth and fifteenth verses of the eighteenth chap- 
ter of Joshua, it is said twice, that Kirjath Jearim was 
a place that belonged unto Judah and Benjamin, or at 
least the land of Benjamin run up to Kirjath Jearim; 
the verses read: "And the goings out thereof were at 
Kirjath-boal, which is Kirjath Jearim, a city of the 
children of Judah; this Avas the west quarter, and 
the south "Negeb" quarter was from the end of 
Kirjath Jearim, and the border went out to the west." 
If the lecturer does not know that, thcn he has no more 
knowledge of the Bible than the bull had of the power 
of the cngine, and is, thcrefore, a very unfit person to 
speak of the Bible; and if he does know ail that we 
hâve hère shown, and in the face of ail the knowledge 
which we will say he has, he allows his boldness to make 
him say Avhat he did, then he has less judgment than the 
animal that had attacked the engine, and his judgment 
ought to be cursed twice as much as the farmer cursed 
the judgment of his bull. 

We bclicve that the reader has now seen enough of 
Mr. Smith's Mastcry of Arts as far as it appertains to his 
knowledge and judgement of the Bible, we will now show 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 38 



the reader the knowledge or the ability of Mr. Smith 
tojudge and understand bistory. In his fifth lecture on 
page 125, for the purpose of proving that the Septua- 
gint is more to be rehed upon than the Hebrew text of 
the Bible, he says: "We come now to passages omitted 
or inserted in one or the other from the text, one of the 
most familiar and instructive of thèse is the story of 
David and Goliah. The story as it appears in our Eng- 
lish Bible, présents inextricable difficulties. In tne 
(17 chapter of First Samuel,) we are told how David is 
introduced to the court of Saul, and becomes the favor- 
ite of the king. Then suddenly we hâve the account of 
a campaign, and we learn, wùthout any explanation that 
David, although he was Saul's armour bearer, did not 
follow him to the tield. He returns to his father Jesse, 
and is sent by Jesse to his elder brothers in the camp 
who treat him with a degree of pétulance not likely to 
be displayed even by elder brothers to a youth who 
already stood well at court. But in fact it appears from 
the end of the chapter, that David is utterly unknown at 
court. Keither Saul nor Abner seerns ever tohave seen 
him before. Every one has been puzzled by thèse appa- 
rent contradictions; but in the Septuagiixt, verse xii to 
xxxi, and then the verses from 55th onwards to the 5th 
of the next chapter, are omitted, and when thèse are 
removed we get a perfectly consistent and natural account. 
We find David in camp and in attendance on Saul, just 
as we should expect." 

Let us for the sake of the argument, erase from our 
Hebrew and English Bibles, the verses which Mr. Smith 
says are not found in the Septuagint, and let us then see 
if the history about Saul and David is as natural and 
consistent as Mr. Smith says it is. 



382 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The verses which he says are not in the Greek Bible 
or Septuagint, are from the twelfth to the thirty-first of 
the seventeenth chapter, and from the fifty-fifth of same 
chapter to the fifth verse of the next, or the eighteenth 
chapter of First Samuel. 

We would very much wish to see how the Master of 
Arts would reconcile, or make consistent the narrative 
of what is said about David and Saul in the sixteenth 
chapter, and what Saul says of him, David, in verses 
thirty-two and thirty-three of the seventeenth chapter, 
which verses, Mr. Smith says, are found in the Septua- 
gint too. 

Chapter XVI : xviii, reads thus: "Then answered one 
of the servants and said: *'Behold I hâve seen a son of 
Jesse, the Bethlemite, that is cunning in playing and a 
mighty valiant man and a man of war, and prudent in 
matters and a comely person, and the Lord is with Jiim. " 

Mr. Smith says: that from the twelfth verse to the 
thirty-first verse of the seventeenth chapter ought not 
to be in the Bible, but the thirty-second and thirty-third 
verses of that chapter read thus: "And David said 
to Saul, "Let no man's heart fail because of him; thy 
servant will go and fight with this Philistine." And 
Saul said to David: "Thou art not able to go against 
this Philistine to fight, for thou art but 2^ youth^ and he 
is a man of war from his youth." 

In the previous chapter, David is described as a 
**man of war, \ mighty valiant man, and the Lord is 
with him;" and in the subséquent chapter we find him 



OR KEV TO SCRIPTURE. 383 



to be a youth, and when an armour and helmet was put 
upon him he could not move. 

If Mr. Smith, or any man will make it "natural and 
consistent," without the verses that he, (Smith,) says 
must be erased from the Bible, and several other ques- 
tions which we will ask him if he can answer that one, 
especially about the âge of David and the time that 
Saul reigned; but we will not ask the other questions now 
because we are as sure that he cannot answer them, as we 
were sure about thirty years ago that Dan Spout could 
not beat us mowing, or any other work in the hay fîeld. 
Dan depended on the enormous quantity of pork that 
he used to consume at each meal, while we ate no méat 
at ail; and if the reader will be even one-half as tired 
of reading the "bold" but groundless statements made 
by the high titled gentleman as we are of investigating 
and exposing them, he will be very glad to find a new 
subject to release him from his tiresomeness, and as we 
are now in a similar position with Mr. Smith that we 
were with the dutchman, with whom we worked 
together for Mr. John Merrick, in Oneida county, New 
York, and being that we hâve concluded to make the 
same proposition to the Master of Arts that we hâve 
made to the master of pork eating, we will, and it may 
be proper that we shall hère relate what took place be- 
tween us and the master of the latter art. 

One day, during haying time, Dan kept on handing 
to us the dishes with méat that were on the table, and 
each time that he handed it to us we put it back on the 
table without taking anything therefrom on our plate, 
at last old Mrs. Merrick told him not to embarrass us 
with the méat, because we eat no méat, in answer to 



384 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 

which, Dan said: "He that eats no pork can do no work 
in the hay field." We then and there, right at the table^ 
în the présence of ail who were at the table, among 
whom was a school mistress and three other young 
ladies said, that if he (Dan) is able to mow more hay in a. 
day, or a week, or a month, or do any other work in 
the hay field than we can, we will commence to eat 
pork, and if he is not able to do more w^ork than 
we can, then he shall stop eating pork. Dan accepted 
our proposition, The resuit was, that the ladies of the 
house and several from the neighborhood were in the 
field that afternoon where Dan and we were hand-rak- 
ing. It was decided that the Dutchman ate so much 
pork and that it ran through him and made the soles of his 
boots so slippery that he could not stand up on his feet, 
he left the field before supper time. The next day we 
went out mowing before breakfast, after breakfast he 
went to grind his scythe, and when he came out into the 
field he stopped every few minutes to re-hang it ; 
at last Mr. Merrick took his scythe from him and 
hung it upon an apple tree and said to him: "Mr. 
Spout, that is the way you want your scythe hung," 
and told him to go and beat apart swarths, which he 
gladly accepted for the purpose of getting rid of the no- 
pork eater. At noon Dan said that if we would not 
leave ofif driving him, he would leave. We told him 
that it w^ould be useless for him to leave, for we would 
folio w him where ver he would go, unless he would go to 
the place where the Irishman dreamed he was, and which 
made him so melancholy, and when he was asked what 
made him feel so gloomy and disheartened he said it was. 
on account of a bad dream, but did not want to telL 
what he dreamed about, and when he was asked if he 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 385 

was sick or dead he said, worse than sick and worse 
than dead, but at last, with tears in his eyes, he said: 
"I dreamed that I was back in the Old Country. " Dan 
remained. It was agreed that we should let Dan alone 
if he would take the big méat dish in his hand, at the 
dinner table, and stand up and say that he was mistaken, 
"I hâve found out that it takes a man to work, and not 
pork," which he did. 

And we now say to Mr. Smith, that if he will explain 
the inconsistency which we hâve pointed out from the 
two chapters that contain our subject, and a few more 
which we will point out to him from the same chapters 
without the verses which he says must be thrown out of 
the Bible, because, as he says, they destroy the sensé, 
we will then begin to believe that he knows something 
of the Bible, and will accept the Septuagint for our Bi- 
ble; but if he can't then he should do the same that 
Dan did. Lct him announce that he was mistaken, that 
he found out that it takes a man with an honest inten- 
tion and good common sensé and judgment to under- 
stand the Bible, and not a mère man who is simply 
incumbered with the letters "M. A." His attempt to 
leave the Old Testament, because, as he says, the no 
pork eating Jews, hâve spoiled it, will be of no more 
use to him than it was to Dan to leave Merrick; he will 
be followed into his newidea of establishing Christianity 
without the support of thé Old Testament, or into any 
idea that he may go into, except to the old idca of ignor- 
ance that prevailed during the dark âges, and which, as the 
Irishman said, the Old Country is worse than death,when 
no one could say anything against what a dignitary saw 
fit or was bold enough to say. 



26 



386 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

Before Mr. Smith will explain the question which we 
hâve heretofore asked, by what he says he finds of the 
Bible in the Septuagint, we will explain what the Master 
of Art says: "Everyone" says the "M. A." "has been 
puzzled by thèse contradictions. " We propose to show 
by the very verses which he, Smith, says must be thrown 
away, because they create contradictions; by thèse very 
verses we propose to show, that if Mr. Smith had 
alittle more understanding of history or had he under- 
stood the manner in which history is written better, than 
he does the Bible, he would hâve seen that the subject 
matter related in the seventeenth chapter of the book 
in question, took place long before the subject that is 
related in the sixteenth chapter. 

The history of Saul's administration is connected 
with the history of Samuel and David. Samuel crowned 
or annointed Saul, and participated in the reign of the 
latter long before David was known or heard of; hence 
it tells of cverything that took place between Saul and 
Samuel up to the end of the time that the latter acted 
with Saul, which was duringthe first two years that Saul 
had reigned. It then goes back, in point of time, and 
tells of a certain battle in which David, while he was yet 
a youth, first became connected with Saul and which is 
continued until the death of the latter. 

But we ask Mr. Smith, if we must throw away the 
inconsistent and unnatural verses of the seventeenth 
and eighteenth chapters of First Samuel because they 
"puzzle" him and "every one" like him, then why not 
throw away the whole of the fifteenth chapter of the 
same book; because, that chapter says that Samuel told 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 387 

Saul, "And now hear the voice of the Lord," and it 
foUows: that he tells him to go and destroy the Amal- 
ekites, and tells him to kill everything, man, women, 
children and beast, and it continues to tell that Saul 
actually went and killed the Amalekites, but left 
the king of the Amalekites, which was the genuine 
Amalek, and a few of the best sheep alive; and worst 
of ail that chapter says; that Saul lost his kingdom, 
because he did not kill that one man where he did ail 
the rest of his race, but brought him to Samuel that he 
should do with him whatever he thought fit, which Sam- 
uel did. This is certainly unreasonable and unnatural 
and must puzzle Mr. Smith and ail like him, very much, 
and is, according to their understanding, very incon- 
sistent with what the fourteenth chapter of the same 
book tells us of the same subject, which is this: "So 
Saul took the kingdom over Israël, and fought against 
ail his enimies on every side, against Moab, Ammon, 
Edom and against the kings of Zobah, and against the 
Philistines, and h.Q gathered a host and sptote the Amal- 
ekites and delivered Israël out of the hands of them 
that spoiled them." If ail the Amalekites were killed 
during the time spoken of in the fourteenth chapter, 
there were no Amalekites left for to be killed during the 
time spoken of in the fifteenth chapter. 

Oh! with what an hypocritical piety Bishop Colenso 
and the rest would hâve sang the praise of, and rendered 
their thankfulness to Mr. Smith for relieving them from 
the cruelty which is recorded in the fifteenth chapter of 
First Samuel, from which Mr. Smith could hâve relieved 
them. And we are certain that Mr. Smith, by his "bold- 
ness" and his "Masterly Arts," of telling how the 



388 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

Hebrew text reads, though what he says; does not agrée 
with the Hebrew text any more than it agrées with 
what he says the Septuagint reads, and by changing a 
few letters in a few Hebrew words, as we find he has 
done in several places in his lectures and notes, such as 
putting in the Hebrew word"Hokim" for "Hobin"; but 
that is not much, it is only changing a "b" into a "k"; 
"but," (says the M. A.,) "the corresponding Hebrew 
words are so alike that they could be easily mis- 
taken." Yes, indeed, they are very much like one; 
and the cause why they are so is, because there is no 
such Word in the Hebrew Lexicon as we hâve spelled 
with an English "k," to represent the Plebrew letter that 
is called "Caph," and that is the way that the letter is 
spelled in the one hundred and nineteenth chapter of 
Psalms, in the English Bible; but be this as it may, 
there is one thing that we are sure of, and that is, if a 
child five years old that would be in our school, and 
would not know at the end of the first month the différ- 
ence between the two letters, which the Master of Arts 
says can easily be taken one for another, we would send 
that child home, with a note to the parents, stating that 
it is of no use to send that child to school, he will never 
learn. (See Twelve Lectures, page 130, note 2d, 
page 404.) 

With the use of ail thèse arts and "boldness", Mr. 
Smith could indeed show great reasons why the fifteenth 
chapter of First Samuel ought to be taken out of the 
Bible; and we are sure that if he should undertake to 
throw out of the Bible ev^erything that puzzles him; 
he would save time and trouble if he would throw away 
the whole Bible at once, for we are certain that the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 389 

whole of it is a puzzle to him; we will however explain 
to him the last verse of the last chapter of the book of 
Hosea, which reads thus: "Who is wise and understand 
thèse things (in the Bible) is prudent and knows them, 
for him the ways of the Lord are right; and the right- 
eous walk in them; but the transgressors fall therein." 

He will, by diligently studying by himself, find, that 
that verse means him and ail like him. We will now 
résume our subject that we left, which is to explain the 
apparent inconsistency in the Biblical history of Saul. 

The historical part of the Bible, is the history of 
Israël, and not the history of one man or of one king; 
hence it only tells the history of the men who hâve at 
one time or another acted a prominent part in Israël, 
just as much as it relates to the actions of each of them, 
and not of the men themselves. Samuel acted with 
Saul, in and for Israël, up to the time that the circum- 
stances related in the fifteenth chapter took place. 
Among the several things that the fifteenth chapter 
tells us, is the confirmation, that at the conclusion of the 
war with the Amalekites the crown of Israël was taken 
from Saul and placed upon the head of David. And 
as Samuel was the one who crowned or annointed 
David, and as that was the last public act, (or for the 
public,) hence that act is recorded in the sixteenth chap- 
ter, which is the one that foUows the chapter that relates 
vi^hen and how Saul was dethroned, which is chapter 
fifteenth. 

From and after the time that David was annointed, 
he became the lawful king and Saul was the acting 
king of Israël, consequently, their actions had to be 



390 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

related simultaneously, and that had to be commenced 
right after he was crowned or annointed; hence, the 
sixteenth chapter, which tells of the coronation of 
David, tells also of his connection with Saul as music- 
ianer and armour bearer, which we will hereinafter show 
by the very verses that the bold "M. A." says; ought 
not to be in the Bible because he don't understand them. 
That what is narrated of Saul and David in the seventeenth 
chapter, took place some years before the things narra- 
ted in the sixteenth chapter, took place. 

If the Bible, or any part of it, had been the spécial 
history of David, it would hâve told how old he was at 
the time he killed Goliah, which was the fîrst act of his 
for Israël, and the same would hâve been with every act 
of his succeeding actions, but as it is not his history, 
but the history of Israël, we must ascertain what we 
wish to know about him from the history of Israël the 
best way that we can. 

We hâve heretofore shown that David was *M niighty 
valiant man^ prudent in vtatters, and the Lord was 
with him.'' When he came to Saul as armour bearer 
and musicianer; from and after that time David remained 
with Saul constantly; "And Saul sent to Jesse, saying. 
"Let David stand before me." (chapter xvi,) while in 
chapter xvii says:) "But David went and returned 
from Saul to feed his fathers sheep at Bethlehem;" and 
in the same chapter, or at the time he killed Goliah, it 
says; he was but a youth, and when Saul put an armour 
on him he could not move; hence it is self évident, or 
the history tells clearly and plainly that at the time 
David killed Goliah he was but a youth, and when he 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 391 

came to Saul to play for the latter he was a mighty val- 
iant man and a man of war; hence we say that the 
Bible plaînly tells that David killed Goliah some years 
before he came to the court of Saul as musicianer. 

And the "pétulant" manner in which David was spok- 
en to by his elder brothers at the time he asked them 
about what he heard Saul said he would do for the man 
that would kill Goliah, is self évidence that that took 
place before David was annointed. The brothers 
were présent when David was annointed, from which 
time the spirit of the Lord was upon him, (chap. xvi: 
xiii;) hence, they would not dare to speak to him at the 
time in question, or on the day he killed Goliah, in the 
manner they did; that act first brought him to the court 
of Saulj from whence he, before long, returned to his 
father's sheep at Bethlehem, and subséquent to the 
killing of Goliah; and after he returned from the 
court of Saul, where he probably staid a day or two, 
or a week, he was annointed and stayed at his fath- 
er's house until he was called by Saul to play before him, 
at which time he had already become a niigJity valiant 
man and a man of war^ and the Lord was with him^ as 
we are told it was from and after the time that he was 
annointed. 

The Description of Jesse, the father of David, is 
another very good and indisputable proof that the first 
introduction that David had to Saul, or the first that the 
latter knew anything of the former, was at the time 
that David undertook to kill Goliah, which is recorded 
in the seventeenth chapter, verse twelve. If the first 
introduction of David to Saul, or the first knowledge 
that the latter had of the former, had been at the time 



392 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

that he, David, was introduced as musicianer to Saul, 
which is related in the sixteenth chapter, verse eighteen; 
Jesse, the father of David, would hâve been, as in thatcase 
he ought to hâve been described there, in the sixteenth 
chapter, or the first time that Saul heard anything of 
David or his father; and as the description of David's 
father is given in the seventeenth chapter, not in the 
sixteenthj and the fact that in the seventeenth chapter 
David is spoken of and called a youth, and the dis- 
respectful manner in which his elder brothers spoke to 
him at the time in question; and the other uncontradic- 
able fact which is recorded in the seventeenth chapter; 
namely, that David was going to and coming from Saul's 
house unto the house of his father; and the fact that the 
sixteenth chapter tells, that when David became the 
musicianer and armour bearer of Saul, that he did not 
more return to the house of his father, as we are told 
by the twenty-second verse of the sixteenth chapter. 

And the fact that he, David, was then spoken of ''as 
a mighty valia^it inaUy and a nian of war^ prudent in 
matterSy and the Lord is with him. " 

Each one of thèse facts is alone enough to estab- 
lish the fact; and each and every one, who knows 
anything at ail of the manner in which history is 
written, knows, or can know the fact by examin- 
ing the two chapters in question; that the subject 
matter in the sixteenth chapter took place before 
the subject narrated in the seventeenth chapter; and 
the very good reason why it is so is, because, that the 
style in which history is, can, and ought to be written, 
is to relate ail the acts that took place between two per- 
sons before bringing in actions that were not performed 
by the same two persons that the historian begun to speak 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 393 

of. The sixteenth chapter relates what took place 
between Samuel and Saul, with which David had noth- 
ing to do; hence, it tells ail that took place between 
them, (Samuel and Saul) before it says anything of the 
actions of David. Mr. Smith would indeed be a Master 
•of Arts, if he could pervert the truth of the two his- 
torical chapters of the Bible that are now in question 
and change the manner in which histoiy is, was, and will 
be written, or the manner in which history can and ought 
to be written. 

But, that being the style in which history can be and 
ought to be written, nothing can, historically, be made 
plainer and surer than the fact, that the first time that 
Saul saw David or heard anything of him was, when 
the latter offered to fight Goliah, which is narrated in 
the seventeenth chapter of First Samuel; and after he 
did kill him, he, David, used to be part of the time 
with Saul and part of the time with his father; and 
W'hile he was with Saul he was his armour bearer; but 
Saul did not know that he was a musicianer until he 
was told, which was after the time that the evil spirit 
came upon him, which is related in the sixteenth chap- 
ter; from and after that time he, David, was with Saul 
continually, and at that time he was already "a mighty 
and valiant man; and the Lord was with him. " 

We may be told or, the reader may suppose, that 
Saul only reigned two years, because, the first verse of 
the thirteenth chapter of the book in question reads 
thus: "Saul reigned one year: and when he had reigned 
two years (second verse) Saul chose him three thousand 
men." (English version.) 

The reader can and will easily perceive from the 



394 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

phra-seology of the first verse, that the intention of the 
writer was not to convey the idea that Saul had reigned 
but two years, or, that at the end of the two years he 
had chosen unto him the number of men named in the 
second verse; And to make a Verbatim translation 
of the Hebrew text of the same verse, will not 
improve the sensé, for it reads thus: "Saul was a year 
old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years 
over Israël. " The English reading of that verse is 
îndeed an improvement upon the manner that it reads 
in Hebrew. But the meaning of that verse cannot very 
well be traced from the way it reads in the English 
Bible. 

Leaving out the idea that a child one year old was 
made king, and fought with and commanded armies and 
conquered nations; but the second verse of the eleventh 
chapter^ which speaks of the time that Saul was made 
king says; that Saul was from his "shoulders and 
upward, higher than any people;" hence, there can be 
no doubt that the verse in question has a hidden mean- 
ing, and that it was written in that way that it might 
convey the hidden meaning, which is this: When the 
Israélites had asked Samuel that he should appoint a king 
over them he told them what a king would do. He said: 
"He will take your sons and appoint them for himself."^ 
(See chapter eight in same book.) In the thirteenth 
chapter, it relates that Saul had disobeyed Samuel, and 
that he became so bold that he did not wait for Samuel 
to sacrifice, but had himself performed the function of a 
priest. Verses thirteen and fourteen, chapter thirteen, 
read thus: "And Samuel said unto Saul; *'Thou hast 
done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 395 



of the Lord thy God, which He commanded thee: for 
now would the Lord hâve established thy kingdom upon 
Israël forever; but now thy kingdom shall not continue, 
the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and 
the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his 
people, becajjse thon hast not kept that which the Lord 
hath commanded thee." 

We are now in a position to give the hidden meaning 
of the fîrst verse of the chapter from which we hâve 
copied the fîrst two verses. "A year old was Saul when 
he begun to reign;" which means, he was as innocent 
and guiltless as a child one year old, when he began to 
reign." "And when he had reigned two years he had 
already taken for himself three thousand men, and for 
his son Jonathan one thousand men of Israël, which was 
as Samuel said, when the Israélites had asked him to 
make a king over them, and at the end of two years 
from the time that he began to reign, his haughtiness 
and disobedience caused him to lose his kingdom, and it 
was given unto David, at which time he was but a small 
boy; and we are told that David lived seventy years, 
and that he had reigned forty years; hence, he must 
hâve been thirty years old at the time he began to 
reign, and he begun to reign right after the death of 
Saul; consequently, Saul had reigned from the time 
David was but a small lad until he became thirty years 
old. Under the Biblical law, one who was twenty years 
old was considered and counted as a military man, or 
had to perform military duty; and at the time David 
killed Goliah he was looked upon and treated by bis 
elder brothers as a boy of but ten or twelve years old, 
or probably fîfteen years old, and -when he was dressed 



59^ A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

in an armour he could not move. We believe that we 
hâve elicited ample reason which proves that if we 
should remove the verses which Mr. Smith says ought 
to be removed from the book of Samuel, that it would 
spoil the sensé of the Bible, the same as the removal of 
Mr. Smith from his professorship, has spoiled his 
understanding which he needs to know himself. 

We will now see what the "Master of Arts" dreamt 
he could say about the book of Kings, which is also in 
the same Fifth Lecture that we are reviewing; but as 
we were looking for the place in Mr. Smith's book where 
he speaks of what Solomon said at the time he dedi- 
cated the temple; we niet a bold assertion that the 
""master of boldness" has made on page 129, where he 
says: "And in Second Samuel, chapter XXi: viii, Mich- 
al, not Merab, appears as the mothcr of Adriel's child- 
ren. In that passage the English version has attempted 
to remove the difficulty by making Michal only the fos- 
ter mother, but the Hebrew will not bear such a sensé. " 
He that tells one falsehood is compelled to say a hun- 
dred more to cover up the one. The *'Maater of Arts" 
is no exception to that rule. Mr. Smith, for the pur- 
pose of substantiating his false theory, that the verses 
which we hâve so often described, ought not to be in 
the Bible; that falsehood compels him to deny that Saul 
had promised to give unto David his eldest daughter 
Merab, for a wife, but he gave her to Adriel, which we 
are told in the eighth chapter of First Samuel; and to 
cover up that falsehood, he has to hâve the boldness to 
assert that Merab was the wife of Davfd and that Michal 
was the wife of Adriel, and that Michal was the mother 
of Adriel's children; and to cover up that last falsehood, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 39/ 

the Hebrew Bible does not permit the English Bible to 
say that Michal was the foster-mother of her sister's 
children from her husband Adriel. 

• 

If Mr. Smith would hâve denied what the last verse 
of the sixth chapter of Second Samuel says, it might 
hâve been necessary for us to dispute what the "M. A." 
says about the Hebrew text, but as lie forgot to deny, 
or say that the last verse of the sixth chapter of Second 
Samuel is not in Lxx. 

And being that that says "Michal had no child until 
the day of her death," we will not resort to the Hebrew 
text; and "M. A." forgot that the Bible tells us that 
Michal became the wife of Paltiel, the son of Laish^ 
and from him did the son of Saul take her, not 
from Adriel, and delivered her to David; ail of which 
the Master of Arts forgot to cover up. We there- 
fore, hâve no need to disturb the Hebrew text, which 
we never do unless something is hid in it that cannot be 
explained from the English version, or where the 
Hebrew text is misstated, as it is by Mr. Smith in his 
telling how the Hebrew text of the twelfth and thir- 
teenth verses of the eighth chapter of First Kings reads, 
for which we were looking in his book, and while look- 
ing for that we; met with the falschoods that he was com- 
pelled to invent for the purpose of covering up the one 
he said. In note second to page 130, Mr. Smith, in 
speaking of the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the 
eighth chapter of First Kings, says: 

"The Hebrew text reads: (verse xii,) "Jehovahhatli 
determined (said) to dwell in darkness, (verse xiii) I hâve 
built a house of habitation for thee, a place for thee to 



398 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

dwell in eternity. " Mr. Smith says; that this is the way 
the Hebrew text reads. 

And we say, that if that is Mr Smith's true, unper- 
verted and honest knowledge of the Hebrew language, 
then he cannot be held responsible for his murdering 
the Hebrew language, for he knows no better. We will 
hère insert the English version of thèse verses, Smith's 
translation from Hebrew and the Hebrew text, and we 
will subsequently make a Verbatim translation of the 
same verses from Hebrew into English, from Avhich the 
reader will perceive how easy it is for one to speak 
Hebrew to Scotchmen in Scotland, and to speak Scotch 
to Hebrews in Jérusalem. 

English Version. Smith's Translation. Hebrew Text. 

Then spake Solomon. "Then said Solomon. *'Oz Omar Solomom. 

"The Lord saiJ that Ile ]eho\3h.hadc/etei'min€d Lord Omar Lishcoun 

■would dwell in the thick to dwell in darknéss. I Boarofel, Bonou Bonicy 

darkness. I hâve surely hâve built a house of Baith Zevool Lochj 

built thee a house to habitation for thee to Mochoun Leshivtecho 

dwell in, a settled place dwell in '■'■eternity.^^ Oulomim." 
for thee to abide in for- 
ever, " 

If the reader will take the trouble to count the words 
of the Hebrew text, he will find that there are but fifteen 
words in it. In Mr. Smith's translation of the Hebrew, 
he will find twenty-three words, and in the English 
version, he will find thirty three words. And the first 
three words, "Then spake Solomon," are also represented 
by the first three Hebrew words, "Oz omar Solomon." 
The reader can easily perceive that the first three words 
convey no spécial nor imperceptible meaning, while the 
remaining twelve words of the subject, do express a 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 399 

subject, or are used to express a subject, that is as inex- 
pressive as it is in comprehensive and imperceptible. 
The translators of the English version of the Bible 
hâve used thirty English words to convey the idea that 
Solomon had attempted to express in the twelve Hebrew 
words.* 

Solomon, nor the Bible, cannot be held responsible 
for the eighteen English words that the translators hâve 
added to the twelve Hebrew words, in which Solomon 
had buried his thoughts about the subject of God's 
habitation; and for the purpose that the twelve Hebrew 
words shall agrée and combine with the eighteen English 
words, that the translators were neccesitated to add to 
them to make the subject somewhat comprehensive, 
they, the translators, hâve been compelled to use some 
of the twelve Hebrew words as they did. The Pro- 
fesser and "M. A." Smith says, that they wanted to 
smoothen it up. 

Mr. Smith, in his endeavorto show that he is more 
honest, or knows more than the translators, because 
they either attempted to cover up a falsehood, or did 
not hâve knowledge enough to perceive it, makes use 
of twenty-three English words to express the subject 
that Solomon had buried in' twelve Hebrew words; and 
as the fîrst three Hebrew words only express the same 
that the fîrst three words do in the English ver- 
sion; hence, he made use of twenty English words to 
express the twelve Hebrew words in question; and as 

*We say "attempted to express," because it is impossible to express and 
explain succesfully and properly, the habitation of God, and the idea of God's 
dwelling in a house. 



400 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

the reader fully comprehends that the subject is 
înexpressive, we will, therefore, see and question how, 
Mr. Smith, the Professer, the Master of Arts, the fault- 
finder and the rectifier; translates the original twelve- 
Hebrew words. 

Mr. Smith translates the Hebrew word "Omar" into 
the English words, "had determined." That is Scotch, 
or Greek Hebrew. The word "Omar," as it is pro- 
nounced, or "Amr" as it is in Hebrew, simply means 
"said," and not "had determined," as Mr. Smith's pur- 
pose made him render that word. The "M. A." 
Smith, had rendered it so, that it may correspond witli 
his Greek. 

The words "in darkness," he translates from the 
Hebrew word "Bo-aro-fel," as that word is pronounced 
in the Hebrew language, or from the word "B,er,fl" as. 
it is in Hebrew. We herein ask Mr. Smith and ail like 
him, to show us a place in the Bible, where the word 
does mean, or can reasonably be constructed to mean 
darkness. ^ 

We say that the word means séparation, and not 
darkness. God, whenever He is spoken of, is rep- 
resented as a light, and a place that is fiUed with light 
cannot be dark. We say that the Hebrew word that the 
"M. A." renders darkness, means séparation. (Deu- 
teronomy, chapter XXI, verse iv.) "Shall strike off the 
heifer's neck. " (Same chapter, verse vi.) "Shall wash 
their hands over the valley where the heifer was 
beheaded." And Exodus, chapter xiîl; xiii. "Then 
thou shalt break his 7ieck.'" The words ''strike oï('* 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 40 1 

"beheaded" and "break his neck," are ail translated from 
the same word that the word "darkness" is translated 
in the English version of the Bible; for which transla- 
tion we hâve heretofore shown a justifiable cause, and 
Mr Smith, the "M. A.," who claims to be mastcr 
of the Hebrew language, Master of Arts and per excel- 
lency, the adjuster of Biblical errors, and the one that 
accuses the Jews of having made additions to their 
Hebrew Bible, since it was translated into the Greek 
language. He, who seems to believe that he is the 
Webster of the Hebrew language, he ought to know 
that "Erfl," or "Arofel, as is pronounced, does not and 
cannot mean darkness. 

If Mr. Smith knows anything at ail of the Hebrew 
language, he ought to know, and we believe that he 
does know, that the word "Hsh," (pronounced Chous- 
hech,) means darkness; hence we believe and say what 
we believe, that the purpose v/hich made Mr. Smith use 
Hebrew among his Scotch audience, is the cause that 
made him render the Hebrew word "Erfl" into the 
English word ** darkness." 

The words "I hâve built," are translated from the 
Hebrew word "Bonicy," which may be said is a proper 
translation; but Mr. Smith skipped the word "Bonou," 
which means building. He probably skipped that word 
because it did not agrée with his Greek 

And the word "place" is rendered by Mr. Smith 
from the Hebrew word "Mochoun, which means "pre- 
pared" and not place; "Mokoum," means a place and 
not *'Mochoun." 



27 



402 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



nity," from the Hebrew word "Oulomim," as Mr. Smith 
did render it. is very far from showing a mastership of 
the Hebrew language. "Oulomim" is as positively 
plural as eternity is singular. 

We believe that we hâve shown more than enough 
for the purpose of enabling the reader to form an 
opinion of Mr. Smith's honest intention, or the knowl- 
edge that he has of the Hebrew language. 

We will, therefore, now give our explanation of and 
translate the twelve Hebrew words of the subject in 
question, and let the reader décide which translation, 
Mr. Smith's, or ours, is more in accordance with reason 
and the knowledge that man has of or about God and 
His habitation. ''^Bonou,*^ building, '' Bonicy,'" I hâve 
built, '' Baith,'' ''Zevooly Loch^'* an habitable house to 
iheQ/' Mochoun Z^j/^2V/^<:/^^,"prepared are for thy seat, 
'''' Oulomim,'' universes; or to separate the English from 
the Hebrew, the former reads thus: Building I hâve 
built an habitable house for thee, (meaning to thy name) 
prepared are for thy seat universes (but) the Lord said to 
dwell in séparation, (Hebrew,) '' Lishcoun BoarofelJ' 

God doth not dwell in darkness any more than he 
does in a house. Universes are his seat: hence, 
Solomon said: "The Lord said to dwell in séparation 
that is, His habitation is separated from the compré- 
hension and perception of man. Building; I hâve built 
an habitable house to thee, (to thy name,) but God 
doth not dwell in houses, His seat are universes. 

We believe that our translation is in accordance 
with what little knowledge man possesses of God and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 403 

His habitation; and we are certain that our translation 
is in accordance with the rule and usage of the Hebrew 
langauge; hence we plainly charge Mr. Smith of either 
being totally ignorant of what he spoke, or that he 
knows better than what he said in his Twelve Lectures; 
and the use that he makes of the Septuagint fuliy sub- 
stantiates and proves our charge. He speaks of the 
Septuagint as if it had been a universal acknowledged 
and undisputed fact, that the LXX, as spoken of, is the 
original copy that was translated during the reign of the 
Ptolmies, by the seventy translators that were sent from 
Jérusalem; but is that so? Is there not more différence 
in the différent copies of the Septuagint that are now in 
existence, than there is between the latest translation 
of the New Testament, and the one that had existed in 
the time of Jérôme? The great library, which the 
Ptolmies had accumulated in Egypt, amongst which 
was the original Septuagint, was kept at Bruchion, and 
in the war of Cassar with the inhabitants of Alexandria, 
the whole of that library was consumed by fire; and 
the library that was subsequently established at Alex- 
andria, without naming the several times that it was 
demolished by fîre during the révolutions, it happened in 
the Roman Empire, with which history is replète; we 
will only mention the last conflagration, which took 
place A. D. 642, when the Saracens took that city, when 
the whole of that library was for months used for fuel. 

The Bible, for about one thousand years after it was 
translated into the Greek language, was to the Greeks 
the same that the Arabian Nights is to us. They had 
no more religions faith in it, than we hâve in the latter; 
hence any copyist threw out what he could not under- 



404 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 

stand and inserted what he liked, or what he thought 
would improve the subject. To hold the Hebrew text 
accountable for its not agreeing with the Septuagint, is 
as reasonable and logical as to hold the Hebrew text of 
the Bible accountable why it does not agrée with Smith, 
Ingersoll, Colenso and the like of them, The reader 
who knows nothing of what is now called the Septua- 
gint, can very easily form a correct opinion of it by 
asking himself: what sort of a Bible would W. R. Smith, 
R. G. Ingersoll and Bishop Colenso make, if the prés- 
ent Bible should become totally lost and destroyed, the 
same as the Septuagint was; and they, the Bishop, the 
Master of Arts and the Colonel, should hâve an oppor- 
tunity to replace it, the same as the Greek fable writers 
had to replace the Septuagint, that was translated from 
the Hebrew Bible during the reign of the Ptolmies, 
which was B. C, and in about two hundred years A. C. 
it was destroyed by fîre and replaced by the Grecian 
fable writerSj which either the ignorance, wickedness, 
or mère boldness of W. R. Smith calls and tries to 
make the world believe, that the production of the 
Grecian Fable writers is the Greek version of the Bible 
that was translated by the seventy translators, sent to 
Ptolmy by the Jews from Jérusalem. 

We believe that if Mr. Smith could hâve a chance 
to replace the Bible, he would throw out the last verse 
of the seventeenth chapter of Proverbs, which reads 
thus: "Even a fool, if he keeps still, is considered wise; 
and he that shutteth his lips is a man of understanding.'* 
He would throw out that verse the first thing, because 
it represents him toc plainly. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 405 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

JEHORAM, KING OF ISRAËL, AND JEHORAM, KING 
OF JUDAII. 

There is one thing in Mr. Paine's "Age of Reason" 
which we ca^not account for and that is, how its author 
came to act the pettifoging lawyer? Mr. Paine was not 
a lawyer, which Mr. IngersoU is; neither was he a sec- 
tarian as Colenso and Smith are, or were. It is easy to 
account why they can see nothing in the Bible but that 
which they think answers their purpose, The lawyer 
sees nothing in the évidence of a case, when he speaks 
of the case to the jury, but that which has référence to 
his side of the case. The sectarian sees nothing in the 
Bible but that what he thinks demonstrates the théories 
of his sect; but Paine was neither one nor the other; 
hence, we cannot account why he did not see the first 
verse of the third chapter of Second Kings, while he 
saw the seventeenth verse of the first chapter and the 
sixteenth verse of the eighth chapter, which last two 
verses seem to be contradicting one another. The 
seventeenth verse of the first chapter says; that Jehoram, 
the son of Ahab, king of Israël, began to reign during 
the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, 
king of Judah; and the sixteenth verse of the eighth 



406 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 



chapter of the same book says: Jehoram, the son of 
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign over Judah 
in the fifth year of Jehoram, the son of Ahab, king of 
Israël. 

The question which Mr. Paine raises is, did Jehoram^ 
of Judah, commence to reign in the fifth year of Jeho- 
ram, king of Israël, as we are told in the eighth chapter, 
sixteenth verse; or did the latter begin to reign during 
the second year of the reign of the former, as we are 
told in chapter i: xvii of the same book? 

Our answer to that question is; if Mr. Paine had seen 
the first verse of the third chapter of the same book, 
and also what it is said about the same subject in 
Chronicles, he would not hâve asked that question. 
"Now Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign over 
Israël in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, king of 
Judah." (Second Kings, III: i.) 

Hère it does not say, in the second year of Jehoram, 
king of Judah, but in the eighteenth year of the reign 
of his father, who reigned over Judah before he begun 
to reign over the same people and in the same place. 

In the last chapter of First Kings, it tells that 
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, went with Ahab, king of 
Israël, to fight the Syrians, in which war, Ahab, king 
of Israël, was killed and the king of Judah escaped and 
came to Jérusalem; that was jn the seventeenth year of 
the reign of Jehoshaphat, and as he came to Jérusalem, 
Prophet Jehu met him and told him that he displeased 
God by his going to help Ahab, the wicked king of 
Israël. As apenance,he took upon himself to estab- 
lish courts of justice ail through the land of Judea, and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 40/ 

gave his time to see that the judges should act justly. 
During the time that he was occupied in that business, 
which lasted about two years, or during the two years 
that Ahaziah, who reigned over Israël but two years, 
and began to reign right after the death of his father 
Ahab, Jehoshaphat left the affairs of his kingdom in the 
hands of his son Jehoram; the latter was the acting 
king during the two years in question; and during the 
two years that he was the acting king of Judah, Ahaziah, 
king of Israël, died, and his brother Jehoram, the son 
of Ahab, begun to reign over Israël, which was during 
the second year that Johoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, 
was the acting king of Judah, as is stated in verse 
seventeen, chapter first. Second Kings; at about which 
time several nations made war against Judah, and 
Jehoshaphat was compelled to assume the management 
of the government again, which was in the twentieth 
year of his reign and in the second or third year that 
his son was acting king, and in the same year that 
Jehoram, the king of Israël, begun to reign; and he 
Jehoshaphat, reigned five years longer, Avhich made the 
twenty-five years of his reign, as we are told in the last 
chapter of First Kings, and at the end of the twenty- 
fîve years, or at the end of five years from the time 
that he, Jehoshaphat, took the management of the gov- 
ernment from his son, which was also the fifth year of 
the reign of Jehoram, king of Israël. Jehoram, king 
of Judahj became the lawful and acting king of Judah, 
as the sixteenth verse of the eighth chapter of Second 
Kings tells, which reads thus: "And in the fifth year of 
Jehoram, the son of Ahab, king of Israël, Jehoshaphat 
being then king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehosha- 
phat, king of Judah, began to reign;" or in other 



408 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

words, Jehoram, king of Israël, begun to reign during 
the second year that Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, 
was the acting king of Judah; and in the fifth year of 
the reign of the former, the king of Judah (Jehoshaphat) 
abdicated the kingdom to his son, Jehoram, who became 
king of Juda«h before his father, Jehosaphat, died, as the 
eighth chapter of Second Kings tells. He begun to 
reign in the fifth year of the king of Israël, and of his 
father, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and five years before 
he became the actual king of Judah, he was two or three 
years the acting king of the same people under his 
father, during which time Jehoram, the king of Israël, 
begun to reign over Israël. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 409 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

BIBLICAL TAXATION, OR TITRES. 

Nearly every one of the anti-Bible writers and 
speakers say, that Moses had enacted the Levitical law 
for the purpose of creating fat offices for his tribe, the 
Lévites, and for his family, the priests. The former 
were to receive and hâve received the tithes and the 
latter the sacrifices. We hâve in a former chapter 
shown, that the sacrifices were only to be kept up until 
the people, the Israélites, would wean themselves off 
from sacrificing to idols; hcnce, we will say nothing 
about that subject hère. 

The tribe of Levi, under the Biblical law, was not 
only the religions government but the civil government 
also; and had, to a certain extent, to participate in mil- 
itary services too; especially in time of war. No other 
government than the Lévites is known to or ordained 
by the laws of Moses, except civil magistrates, who 
were to receive no rémunération for their services. 
The Lévites were the highest civil tribunal. The sub- 
séquent establishment of the monarchial form of govern- 
ment, cannot be ascribed to the laws of Moses, nor to 
any other part of the Bible; it was simply established 
in obédience to the will of the people. And tithes was 



4IO A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



the only rémunération that the Lévites had, and ail that 
they were to receive for ail the service that they had ta 
render to the nation, in accordance with the laws of the 
Bible. 

A tenth part of the annual production of the soil 
and cattle is, apparently, a very high and consequently 
oppressive taxation, because, it is equal to ni per cent. 
But is that really as it appears to be, when it is com- 
pared to our présent mode of taxation? Certainly not. 

Suppose that an Israélite had ten cows, and they 
produced annually the same number of calves; the tax 
that the Israélite had to pay on his ten cows and ten 
calves, was one calf, which for convenience sake, we say 
was worth five dollars; the nine calves that he had left 
were never taxed again. 

Let us now compare it to our présent mode of tax- 
ation. The ten cows, we say, are worth but fifteen 
dollars each, that is charging less than one-half of their 
actual market value; that makes one hundred and fifty 
dollars; the ten calves, but twenty dollars, or two dol- 
lars each, which together with the value of the cows, 
makes one hundred and seventy dollars in ail. On 
which amount, we will say, he only has to pay a tax of 
no more than three per cent. , which makes fîve dollars 
and ten cents. We will say he keeps the ten cows and 
the calves until the latter are twelve years old: how 
much taxes will he hâve to pay on his stock during the 
twelve years. For convenience sake we say, that he 
paid no more the second year than he paid the 
first; but the third year, he will be taxed on twenty 
cows, at the tax valuation of but fifteen dollars each or 
on a valuation of three hundred dollars. At but three 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 41 1 

per cent, makes a tax of nine dollars; and that 
amount he would hâve to pay each and every year 
during the succeeding ten years. That makes ninety 
dollars in the ten years, and ten dollars and twenty 
cents during the first two years, which makes a tax of 
one hundred dollars and twenty cents in twelve years, 
at the no price at ail, of but fifteen dollars per cow and 
at the low rate of but three per cent. ; while under the 
Biblical law of taxation, it would only cost him one 
calfduringthe ten years, which, accordingto our tax val- 
uation was worth but two dollars; but one-fiftieth part 
that it would cost under our présent mode of tatxation, 
without saying six or seven per cent, which is often and 
and in many places the rate of taxation. 

But to keep twenty cows, he must hâve land to keep 
them on and the land is taxed as well as the stock. 
Let us, therefore, see how much taxes, during a certain 
given time, cne has to pay under our présent mode of 
taxation; and then see what he would hâve to pay for 
the same farm under the Biblical law. 

Say that his farm, buildings and stock, are valued at 
five thousand dollars, on which he is taxed three per 
cent, which makes one hundred and fifty dollars a year 
in ten years he will hâve to pay fifteen hundred dollars 
taxes on his farm without questioning him if he made 
or lost anything during the ten years by working his 
farm. 

But, suppose he makes one thousand dollars a year 
by working his farm, of which he consumes one-half 
during the year, and we will say that he pays no tax on 
what he consumes; hence, we say he only saves five 



412 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



hundred dollars a year, on whicli he is taxed. In ten 
years he would save fîve thousand dollars. The tax on 
his income during the first year on fîve hundred dollars 
at three per cent., would be fifteen dollars; and during 
the tenth or last year, the amount of his income during 
the ten ycars would be five thousand dollars, or ten 
times fîve hundred dollars; on which his income tax for 
the tenth year would be one hundred and fîfty dollars, 
and the taxes that he had to pay on his income during 
the ten years comes to eight hundred and twenty-fîve 
dollars; add it to the fîfteen hundred dollars tax that he 
had to pay during the same time on his farm, makes a 
total of two thousand three hundred and twenty-fîve 
dollars that he had to pay as taxes during ihe ten ycars. 

While under the Biblical mode of taxation, he would 
only hâve to pay one tenth part of his annual income, 
or one hundred dollars a year, which is one tenth part 
of one thousand, the estimated annual income of the 
farm in the illustration, or one thousand dollars in the 
ten years; but it could not be even as much as that, for 
he needs not give tithes from straw nor from hay, which 
forms a large amount of the products and income of a 
farm. 

But, did the tenth part that the Israélites gave to the 
Lévites, actually belong to the former? By no means. 
Because, one thirteenth part of the tenth part that the 
Lévite took from the Israélite, did belong to the Lé- 
vite; or it was produced on the land that was taken 
from the Lévite and given to the Israélite. 

The land of Canaan was to be divided among the 
thirteen tribes of Israël, and for the purpose of making 
the tribe of Levi attend to his ofhcial duties, he was 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 413 

made to dépend iipon what he could get from liis office. 
The Israélite could gîve his tithes to any Lévite that he 
liked; hence, a Lévite who neglected his officiai duties, 
had but a slim chance to get his share of the tithes, and 
for the purpose of making the Lévites attend to their 
officiai duties, they were deprived of their share of the 
land; and the land in question was divided into twelve 
parts, instead of into thirteen parts. The resuit was^ 
that each Israélite had one thirteenth part more land 
than he could hâve had if the Lévites had taken their 
thirteenth part; hence, of the supposed thousand dollars 
that the Israélite farmer made annually .off his farm, 
seventy-six dollars, ninety-two cents and four thirteenth 
parts of a cent ($76.92 4-13), or one thirteenth part 
of one thousand was produced on the land that 
rightfuUy belonged to the Lévite; hence, the Lévite 
only received from the Israélite, for his officiai services 
annually, the sum of twenty-three dollars, seven and 
nine thirteenth parts of a cent, (23.07 9-13), and in 
ten years he had received but two hundred thirty dol- 
lars and seventy-six cents and twelve-thirteenths of a 
cent (230.76 12-13), while under our présent mode of 
taxation he would hâve to pay two thousand three 
hundred and twenty-five dollars. This shows how much 
they who bark against the Bible know what they are 
barking about. 



414 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

THE INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF ISRAËL. 

Egypt was the birth place and cradle of Israel's 
nationality. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, was the fîrst 
one who called the Isralites a nation. "The people of 
the children of Israël are more and mightier than we 
are. " The word people is translated from the Hebrew 
Word "Em," which désignâtes nation, "Am-im," (with 
an "a" or "Aleph" and the "im" at the end désignâtes 
the plural number) and sometimes means people; hence 
we say, that Pharaoh was the first one who gave to the 
Israélites the title of nation. 

And as soon as he declared them to be a nation, he 
became envions of their increase and had began to 
meditate upon their destruction, and to devise plans 
how to destroy them. And from that time until, literally 
speaking, to-day, there has not been a time that there 
was not a nation upon the face of the earth that had not 
tried his powers and skill, by attempting to destroy 
Israël from off the face of the earth; but the skill, 
devices and power of ail had failed, the same as that of 
Pharaoh did fail. 

The fîre of the Babylonians; the lion's den of the 
Medes; the sword of the Persian Haman; the cruelties 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 415 

of the Macedonian Antiochus; the thousands of cruel- 
ties and manners of death, invented by the Church of 
Rome, during the dark âges and gloomy prospect for 
Israel's posterity. The driving of Israël from place to 
place and the robbing him of ail he had when he was 
driven from place to place, up to the présent time, and 
trouble that Israël has from the tyrannical government of 
Russia. AU, and every nation and devices hâve failed 
to destroy Israël from off the face of the earth, or to 
separate him from the laws that were given to him, and 
from the God who gave thèse laws to him; they hâve 
failed, the same as the choking and drowning of newly 
born Israélite maie children, which were the methods by 
which Pharaoh attempted to stop the increase of Israël, 
hâve failed. 

Each and every unsuccessful attempt to destroy 
Israël has greatly magnified the question; why he, Israël 
cannot be destroyed? Dififerent causes and différent 
reasons were at différent times assigned in answer to the 
question of the indestructibility of Israël or the Jew; 
but ail causes and the reasons that were given, failed to 
satisfy the question, the same as the devices and nations 
hâve failed to destroy Israël. 

But, there is a Power that can destroy Israël from the 
face of the earth; and there is a cause that can make 
that Power destroy Israël, but the latter controls the 
cause; and there is also one answer why ail the endeavors 
that were made by the nations of the world, hâve failed 
to accomplish what they hâve desired; of whom the 
Crusaders alone, seem to hâve been enough to accom- 
plish the desired destruction of the indestructible race. 



4l6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

God is the only one power that can destroy Israël 
from the face of the earth; and the laws that God gave 
unto Israël, are the only cause that could induce that. 
Omnipotent power to destroy them; that is, if Israël 
would totally forsake the laws that his, and only, God 
gave unto him; but Israël controls that cause; he had 
at no time totally forsaken his God, nor the laws that. 
his God hath given unto him. Even at the time when 
Israël w^as a mère school boy; when he had to hâve 
sacrifices for pictures in his school book, from which he 
was to learn to know and to serve his God; and pro- 
phets for teachers to teach him what his God desires of 
him. And even at the very time, when Israël became so 
wdld and unruly at school, that he killed ail his teachers, 
(the prophets,) except one, prophet Elijah, who saved 
himself by running away from Israël and from school, who 
thought that Israël had then totally forsaken the laws 
that his God gave to him, and had reported so unto God, 
as we are told in the nineteenth chapter of First Kings: 
"And he said * * * because the children of 

Israël hâve forsaken thy covenant * * * and 

slain thy prophets with the sword, and even I only am 
left, and they seek my life to take it away;" but even 
tJien there were "seven thousand" Israélites who hâve 
not forsaken their duty to their God; and thèse "seven 
thousand," hâve, like Moses in the wilderness, controUed 
the cause of Israel's destruction and hâve saved him 
from being destroyed. 

There is a spécial statutory ordinance in the Bible 
that was enacted and was given to Israël before the Ten. 
Commandments, or any other part of the Biblical laws, 
were given to him; and that ordinance contains Israel's 
indestructibility. It was enacted and given to him at 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 417 



"Marah," on the third day after he became free and was 
subjected to noone else thanhis God, and that was after 
he crossed the Red sea. On the third day he came to 
Marah; "There he made for them a statitte and an 
ordinance." Let us now see what is the statute and 
the ordinance that God hath made for Israël at " Marah, " 
and with what did he "prove them." AU that it says 
there is that: "Moses brought Israël from the Red sea, 
and they w^ent three days in the wilderness and found 
no water;" and when they came to Marah, they could 
not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter, 
therefore the name of it was called "Marah." (The 
word Marah, in the Hebrew language, désignâtes bit- 
ter.) And the people murmured against Moses, say- 
ing: what shall we drink? And he cried unto the Lord; 
and the Lord showed him a tree, which, when he casted 
it into the waters the waters were made sweet; there he 
made for them a statute, and an ordinance and there he 
reproved them and said: "If thou wilt diligently heark- 
en to the voice of the Lord, and wilt do that which is 
right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his command- 
ments, and keep ail his statutes, I will put none of thèse 
diseases upon thee, which I hâve brought upon the 
Egyptians, for I am the Lord that healeth thee." 

No statute nor commandment was given to Israël 
to keep before he came to Mount Sinai, which was in 
the third month after he left Egypt; and the narrative 
of ail that took place at the time that he was at Marah, 
does not apparently state that any statute or command- 
ment was there given to Israël to keep, neither does it 
state, how nor what it was "proven to them," at Marah; 
and that what it does state is very incomprehensive. 



28 



41 8 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

It stated that "He cried unto the Lord," but it is hard 
to tell who cried, whether it means Moses cried, or the 
whole nation, Israël, did cry unto the Lord. In the wil- 
derness of sin, where the people were again troubled 
from the want of water, and had murmured against 
Moses, which is related in the next chapter to the one 
in question, (Exodus, xvi,) there it says: "And Moses 
cried unto the Lord * * and the Lord said unto 
Moses," fourth and fifth verses; and that is the way 
that it is in every place where it tells that the people 
murmured against Moses, and that he cried unto the 
Lord. Why does it not say so at Marah? Why are the 
pronouns, "he, him and them" used in the twenty-fifth 
verse of the fifteenth chapter, in stating what took place 
at Marah, without first using the name or names for 
whom the pronouns are substituted. 

If it was the Israélites that were crying unto the 
Lord, then why does it not say so, the same as it says 
in the chapter that précèdes the one in question, or the 
fourteenth: verse tenth; "And the children of Israël cried 
out unto the Lord;" when they found that the Egyp- 
tians were behind them. Why does it not say so, if it 
means to say that the Israélites were crying unto the 
Lord at Marah? 

And there is another incompréhensible part in the 
statement of what took place at Marah, which is, "If 
thou wilt hearken" to the voice of the Lord thy God, 
* * * j ^lll p|^|- none of the diseases upon thee 

which I hâve brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the 
Lord that healeth thee." The question is: if He "will 
put none of the diseases upon" them, he can hâve noth- 
ing to heal them of, and if He shall hâve to heal them 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 419 

of the diseases it speaks of, then He, God, must hâve 
put the diseases upon them. 

The answer to ail thèse questions is this: the state- 
ment of what took place at the time that Israël was at, 
or in "Marah," embraces ail the times and ail the places 
of "Marah," (bitterness,) in which Israël was and will 
yet hâve to be, until the purposes for which he, Israël, 
was chosen, will be accomplished; and it refers to ail 
the Israélites that were in the world since the time in 
question. Thèse that are now in the world are now 
drinking the bitter waters of "Marah," and they 
that will yet corne into the world will liave to drink 
the same as they that were at "Marah" at the time in 
question; and therefore is, neither the name of Moses 
nor of the Israélites that were at the "Marah," (bitter- 
ness,) which they reached on the third day after they 
were removed from the Red sea. No proper name can 
be given when a subject is spoken of that is to pre- 
vail for an indefinite time and upon ail that shall exist 
during that indefinite time. 

The statute and ordinance that were there at the 
time and place in question, made ''for tJiem,'' (Israël) 
are the same as the ordinance and statutes that contain 
the laws of nature. Each and every disease that comes 
upon man, is brought upon him because he neglects to 
observe the laws of nature; and the cure of every 
disease, that is produced by the laws of nature, is also 
found in the laws of nature; that is, each disease that 
comes upon men, compels them to study the laws of 
nature to find a healing remedy for that disease, and 
the bitter afflictions of the man that sufîfers from the 
disease is a benefit to the rest of mankind, for through 



420 A COLLECTION OF THOUGIITS, 

the sufferings of the one that does sufifer, they not only 
obtain the healing remedy for that disease, but they also 
learn to abstain from violating the laws of nature that 
produces the disease. 

But the diseases which God brought upon the Egyp- 
tians, and of which the fifteenth chapter of Exodus 
speaks, were not diseases that were produced by the 
laws of nature, neither could a heahng remedy be found 
in the laws of nature for thèse diseases; and if no 
remedy can be found to cure a disease, then the suffer- 
ing of one from that disease is of no benefît to any one 
else; the same is the case with the laws of God, which 
are recorded in the Bible; the violation of them pro- 
duces afflictive diseases, and the healing remedy for the 
diseases, that the violation of those laws produce, is 
also found in the same laws, which is, to observe them. 

And thèse are the statute and ordinance which God 
made for Israël when he was in "Marah;" they, the 
Israélites, were there told: "If thou wilt diligently 
hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do 
that which is right in His sight, and will give ear to 
His commandmentSj and keep ail his statutes, I will put 
none of the diseases upon thee, which I hâve brought 
upon the Egyptians." 

It naturally and reasonably foUows, that if Israël will 
not observe ail the things heretofore told, that he will be 
afiflicted with unnatural diseases: But it was there, at 
Marah, ordained in the '^ ordinance'' that was there 
enacted, that Israël shall not be utterly destroyed by 
unnatural diseases, the same as ail the nations were who 
knew nothing of the laws of the Bible. God told them 



j 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 421 

there, fear not, even if I shall hâve to bring thèse diseases 
upon you, "I am the Lord that healeth thee;" "and 
there He proved them. " How and what was proved to 
them? The answer is; it was proved to them, that their 
affliction, if they should hâve to be afflicted for disre- 
garding the laws of God, will be of great benefit to the 
rest of mankind. The word "Marah" désignâtes bitter. 
The Israélites, after travehng "three days" in the wild- 
erness without water, came to "Marah," (bitter,) but 
could not drink the water that was there because it was 
bitter; the Lord showed him a tree, and he casted the 
tree into the water, "and the waters were made sv/eet. " 

It is well known that végétation growing by a 
swamp or a stream, absorbs in itself the taste of 
the swamp or the stream; consequently, the tree 
that grew in "Marah," (bitter,) (according to the 
laws of nature,) must also hâve been bitter; and 
that bitter tree made the waters sweet! that had demon- 
strated to Israël then and for ail time to corne, that, 
whenever he shall hâve to drink from the bitter waters 
of affliction, from which he had drank so often, and 
partly drinks to-day, (in Russia) he shall always cast the 
same tree into the bitter waters and it will sweeten it; 
which he always did and does, and which is no other 
tree than the one that Solomon speaks of: "She, (the 
law of God,) is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon 
her; and happy is everyone that retaineth her. " Pro- 
verbs, chapter XIII: xviii. "The law of the Lord is just, 
it refreshes the heart * * * sweeter also than 

honey and honey-comb." (Psalms, chapter XIX.) 

For more than three thousand and five hundred 
years has Israël carried that same tree with him wher- 



422 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

ever he went, and that tree has made sweet ail the bîtter 
waters that he had to drink out of the mighty streams 
of his afflictions, of which a mère taste, in comparison 
to the quantity that Israël drank, utterly destroyed 
those that hâve existed during that time and tasted of 
the bitter waters of affliction, who knew not of that 
wonderful tree and of its healing remedy; and the 
nations that are novv in existence, hâve only saved them- 
selves froni the fate of their predecessors by the knowl- 
edge that they hâve obtained from Israël, of the 
wonderful healing remedy that that tree possesses to 
cure and save from total destruction by the afflictive 
disease produced by drinking from the bitter stream of 
oppression. Is there to be wondered at, why it was 
always easier for Israël to part with his life than his 
tree of life? The only thing to wonder at is, that it 
took mankind so long to obtain the knowledge of that 
tree of life; and that is not surprising, for there is a 
cause which fully accounts for that; and that is: so long 
as Israël was in his own land and was not subject to the 
destructive disease of affliction, he made but very little 
use of that tree of life, so much so that it was but little 
known, even in the land of Israël; but, when he had to 
leave his land and was again brought to the necessity of 
drinking the ^'bitter waters of Mar ah y^'' ÛïQnhQ had to 
practice the healing remedy of his tree; and the indes- 
tructibility of Israël, caused by the use that he made of 
his tree of life, brought the knowledge of that tree 
of life, or the laws of God, to mankind, and the wond- 
derful préventive power from destruction, which they saw 
that thèse laws hâve, made mankind accept and use 
them, the same as one that is sick would use a certain 
drug, which he knows has cured others of the same sick- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 423 

ness; and this is what Isaiah meant by saying, "and 

WITIl llIS STRIPES WE ARE HEALED. " The sickness of 
one discovers a curing remedy for others; and if our 
Christian friends will diligently study the history of the 
world of the last two thousand years and ascertain the 
position that Israël had occupied in the world, they will 
be able to understand the fîfty-third chapter of Isaiah, 
without having any questions to ask or answer. 

We believe that the prophets of political freedom and 
unity, did not hâve as much reason to hope that their 
dreams will so soon turn into a reality in the Western 
Hémisphère, when they were telling men their prophétie 
dreams about the freedom that we now enjoy.as we hâve 
to hope and to believe that the time is not very far when 
America will give to the world a rehgious unity ^ the 
same as it did a religions freedom; ail that it needs to 
bring it about is, that the rulers or teachers of religion 
shall not rule nor teach by force and blind faith, but 
shall teach and rule with reason and understanding, for 
one thing is sure, and that is; if God gave the Bible to 
man that he shall observe it, He must hâve given him 
power to understand it; that certainly was our depend- 
ence upon which we hâve depended, when we had begun 
to study the Bible; with that we hâve begun to write 
our Collection of Thoughts, and we dépend on that for 
the answer of every question that may be asked of us 
during the remainder of our life time, about what we 
said in our Collection of Thoughts and about the Bible; 
and if every man who has an honest faith in the Bible, 
would dépend upon the Bible and on the pow^er that 
God hath given him to understand, there could be no 
place for infîdelity to plant itself upon Biblical grounds. 



424 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

The *'sword" of religion, would long ago hâve been 
"beaten into plough shares," (to plant and cultivate the 
mind,) "and their spears into pruning-hooks," (to prune 
the human heart and the mind from bigotry, religions 
hâte and oppression." "And it shall corne to pass, in 
the last days," (says Isaiah, in the second chapter of his 
book,) "That the mountain of the Lord's house" (the 
knowledge and worship of God,) "shall be established 
in the top ci the mountains" (in the whole world,) "and 
shall be exalted above the hills" (the knowledge of God 
shall be above everything) "and ail nations shall flow 
unto it, and many shall go and say: "corne ye, and let 
us go up to the mountain (the knowledge) of the Lord 
to the house of the God of Jacob, and he (Jacob) will 
teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths 
* * * Oh! house of Jacob, corne ye, and let us 

walk in the light of the Lord." 

Thèse and such are the prédictions that Isaiah had 
predicted. It makes no différence who Isaiah was, 
when he was, nor who did and when was the book 
of Isaiah written. It is to-day as he said when he said 
what he did say. One thing is certain that it was said 
and written more than two thousand years ago. Even 
admitting what some say; that it was written by or in 
the time of Ezra, and that was centuries before any 
other people than Israël or Jews, the posterity of Jacob, 
knew anything or cared to know anything of the God 
of Jacob. About nineteen hundred years ago the 
nations had started and took the house of Jacob out 
of Jérusalem, to teach them the law that was then 
only known in Zion; they hâve since that time walked 
togetherallthe wayfrom Paganism, through the rockyand 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 425 

dark mountains of Catholicism, ignorance and bigotry ; but 
thanks to God, the light of the Lord of Jacob, now 
shines upon Christian Unitarians, and the like of them, 
which demonstrates the truth of what Isaiah and others 
like him hâve said; that no one, but an unreasonable 
being, can now ask or doubt that, what Isaiah and the 
like of him hâve said, whether or not it was revealed to 
them or not, or question the authenticity of the Bible. 
Being that it is foolish and useless to raise and discuss 
that subject we will say nothing about it, and will now 
turn our attention to what our Christian friends hâve 
become habituated to call the New Testament, and 
which they claim to be their own and say that the Jew 
does not believe in. We propose to ascertain what 
they say about it and what reasons they hâve for say- 
ing that the Jew does not believe in it; and why they 
call it new, and see whether there really is such an 
insurmountable wall between the Old, and what they 
call the New Testament, as they or some of them say 
there is. 



426 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. WHO AND WHAT CHRIST V\ AS 
AND WHO lîE IS. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 
OF AND THE VIRGIN HERSELF; WHO AND WHAT SUE 
AND IT WAS, OR THE BELIEF THAT THE JEW H AS 
TO-DAY, AND IIAD NINETEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO, 
IN WHAT CHIRISTIANS CALL THE NEW TESTAMENT; 
AND A REMOVAL OF THE SUPPOSED WALL THAT IS 
BELIEVED TO EXIST BETWEEN THE JEW AND CHRIST- 
IAN AND BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 

The purpose for which we undertook to write our 
"Collection of Thoughts or Key to Scripture," was not 
only to explain uncomprehended passages of the Bible, 
but also to explain what a Jew is, and the purpose for 
which he is kept upon the face of the earth. The Jew 
cannot he separated from the Bible, neither can the 
Bible be separated from the Jew. 

They who know no better, say that the Jew docs not 
believe in what is called the New Testament; and that 
class of men will probably say to us, that we hâve no 
right to meddle with anything that is in the New Testa- 
ment, because we are Jews; hence, we must ascertain 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 42/ 



what the New Testament is, and the relative position it 
has to the Jews. 

The Bible is the history, as well as the statute of the 
Jews. The Old Testament contains their history up to 
the time that the second Temple was finished. The 
New Testament contains a record of Chrisc and His 
diiciples, and of what they hâve said and done; and it 
is admitted by ail, that Christ and his early followers 
were Jews^ and the land of Judea was the place where 
they lived and acted; hence, the New Testament con- 
tains a history of the Jews the same as the Old Testa- 
ment; consequently, the Jew has the same right to 
criticise the New Testament and explain it, that he has 
to the Old Testament. 

Yes, the New Testament contains part of the history 
of the Jews; hence, no one can, with propriety and 
reason, raise any objections to a Jew criticising or 
explaining the New Testament, in which man became 
habituated to say, the Jew does not believe. 

Had our purpose for writing our "Collection of 
Thoughts" been nothing else than to explain that 
part of the Bible that contains the history of the Jews 
up to the time that the second Temple was finished, or 
where the Old Testament ends, then our task would 
hâve been done, our duty performed, and we would 
hâve rested from our labor, though the object for which 
purpose we undertook to write the "Collection of 
Thoughts" would be left unaccomplished. 

But the Bible cannot be separated from the Jew, nor 
the Jew from the Bible. One explains the other. The 



428 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

existence of the Jew explains the Bible, and the latter 
tells the purpose for which the former was chosen, pré- 
servée!, and kept till now and will exist until the purpose 
for which he was chosen shall be accomplished; and the 
purpose for which the Jew was chosen is, that through 
him "AU nations shall know my name # * * 

saith the Lord." 

Yes, reader, we maintain, and facts prove, that the 
few was chosen to bring the knowledge of God to the 
mind of each and every man; and the fear and love of 
God into every man's heart; and the purpose for which 
the Jew was chosen, will not be accomplished until the 
knees of ail men will bend to the God that hath chosen 
Israël and maintained the Jew upon the face of the 
earth. 

Israël was the agent or vehicle that brought the 
knowledge of the One and Only God into Egypt, and 
made Pharaoh and his people acknowledge the power 
of that God. The Jew brought the knowledge of his 
God into Babylon, and her haughty kings had not only 
acknowledged the power of that God, but hâve made 
death the punishment of any one of their subjects that 
would speak anything against the God of the Jews. 
(Daniel and his companions.) 

Thèse are facts that are known to ail that know any- 
thing at ail of the Bible; and every one that believes in 
the Bible believes thèse facts to be true; and is it not 
very strange, that we hâve never heard a Christian give 
crédit to the Jew for the knowledge that the latter had 
brought to and spread among the Christian nations who 
inhabit the face of the earth at the présent time! 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 429 

The Christian crédits himself with full faith in the 
New Testament, and charges the Jew with a disbelief in 
the same book, but if there is anything in the New 
Testament which is not denied, and which is not 
contradicted by any one of the several authors of the 
accounts that constitute the New Testament, and that 
was not changed by the numerous changes and altéra- 
tions that the bocks of the New Testament hâve been 
subjected to since it came into existence until the prés- 
ent time is, the undisputed fact, that Christ himself, ail 
the apostles and disciples, as well as nearly ail the actors, 
whose actions are recorded in the New Testament, were 
Jews, and hâve claimed to be Jews after they became 
the foUowers and the disciples of Christ; nevertheless, 
the faithful Christian, though he charges Judas Ischariot 
to the Jew, yet, he refuses to give the Jew crédit 
for Christ, Apostle Paul and the rest. 

The insurmountable and impregnable wall that the 
world has habituated itself to believe it exists and sépar- 
âtes the Old Testament from the New, and the Jew 
from the Christian, was built by the bigots who had 
control of the Christian Church during the dark âges, 
which begun long after the time the Christian era begun. 
St. Jérôme, one of the most renowned of the first fath- 
ers of the Church, who lived in the fourth century, 
seems not to hâve known of the wall of séparation 
that causes hatred between Jew and the non-Jew. P^or 
he not only gives crédit to the Jews for the knowledge 
he received from them, which enabled him to translate 
the Bible from the Hebrew language, but had faith and 
confidence enough in the Jews to advise, that any différ- 
ence which may be found between his translation of the 



430 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Bible and the translation that the Christians had at that 
time from the Greek language, shall be submitted to a 
Jew. Yes, reader, St. Jérôme advises to take a Jew as 
arbitrator to décide disputes and infuse knowledge into 
the Christian Church. 

But ail thèse are only historical facts; there are 
some men who may deny the writings of St. Jérôme 
more readily than they deny the Bible. We will, therc- 
fore cease to bring up historical facts, and cast our 
observation upon existing facts, and see whether the 
existing facts which cannot be denied, correspond 
with historical and Biblical facts; and it is to be 
expected that the existing facts shall coincide with 
the historical and Biblical facts, because, the Bible 
predicts the existing facts; and as the Bible, religion, 
and the wonderful indestructibility of the Jews, are 
ail for the same purpose and are designs of God; hence, 
they must agrée. 

It is an undisputed, well known and admitted fact, 
that the van of Christianity is now nearer to the Jew 
than it is to the Church of Rome; and the Church of 
Rome itself broke up her encampment, and is imper- 
ceptibly moving towards liberality, rationality and 
reason. Unitarians and Universalists are so near by 
Judaism that they believein but the One God, and that 
Christ was a human being. He who says the Jew does 
not believe in the New Testament, says it with as much 
reason as he could hâve if he would say that the Unitar- 
ian does not believe in the New Testament. 

The Jew does not believe in the thousand and one, 
or more différent constructions and chancres that the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 43 1 

thousands and one, or more, of the Christian sects hâve 
made in the New Testament since it came into their 
hands, and as they believe, to their knowledge. They 
hâve each time changed it to answer their désire at that 
lime; and hâve each time constructed it to mean and 
made it say, that that, 01 this sect is right; and in thèse 
changes and constructions the Jew has no faith. 

But the Jew does and always did believe, that the 
New Testament was a "light for the Gentiles," the same 
as the sun was placed in his orbit to give light upon the 
earth and to the solar System of planets. The Jew 
believes, that the New Testament was given to the Gen- 
tiles, that it shall illuminate their minds to enable them 
to perceive the true and only One God, which the Chris- 
tian or Gentile van now beholds. 

The Jew believes, that withbut the shining light of 
the New Testament, that illuminated the mind and 
warmed up the hearts of the Gentiles, he, the Jew, 
could not hâve accomplished what he did during the 
last nineteen centuries, or the third day of his journey, 
Neither can the Jew of to-day perceive how he could 
hâve been in existence to-day without the light of the 
New Testament shining upon the Gentiles. 

The Jew of to-day, has the same belief about the 
New Testament, that he had nineteen hundred years 
ago. The only change that took place in the Jew 
about the New Testament is; in the mood. Nineteen 
centuries ago, in speaking of Christianity, he spoke in 
the subjunctive mood. The Jew, Rabbi Gamleal, nine- 
teen centures ago, said: "If Christianity is the act of 



432 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 



God;" and the Jew of to-day uses the indicative mood; 
he says: Christianity *'is" of God. God hath inspired 
the apostles to act as they did and write what they did 
for the purpose of bringing Him, God, to the knowledge 
of the Gentiles, the same as He did inspire those who 
brought Him to the knowledge of the Egyptians and 
Babylonians. 

We believe that we hâve brought up proof, more 
than enough to remove the erroneous idea, that there is 
such an insurmountable wall between the Jew and the 
Christian, as Cbristians hâve habituated themselves to 
beheve there ir.; and that there is such a partition 
between the Old and New Testaments, as Christians 
hâve imagined and as some still imagine; and we 
beheve that we hâve fully and conclusively estabhshed, 
or produced proof enough to estabhsh the fact, that a 
Jew has as much right to question and answer questions 
about the New Testament, that he has to answer and 
explain questions about the Old Testament, about which 
there is no doubt, and nobody disputes that the Jew is 
the most proper, and the only one that is compétent to 
answer and explain whatever is or can be asked about 
the Old Testament; especially when the questions and 
answers are for the purpose of reconciling and uniting 
the two parts of the Bible, the same as the Christian 
and the Jew are about united; as it is between the 
Unitarian and the Jew; inslead of disuniting them, as 
the ignorant and bigoted, that hâve lived during the 
dark âges hâve disunited and separated them; conse- 
qiiently, we, as Jews, believe to hâve an indisputable 
right to explain the several questions that reason made 
the world ask about the New Testament. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 433 

We not only believe that the Jevv has an indisput- 
able right to answer thèse questions, but we believe and 
feel in our hearts that it is his religion and his humanity, 
as well as the purpose for which God kept and keeps him 
upon the face of the earth, each and ail make it to be his 
duty to answer the questions that ignorance, bigotry 
and selfishness, hâve raised against the New Testament; 
and explain thèse questions in accordance with reason 
and the understanding of every man, thathe may know 
and understand, that his Merciful Father, his Creator, 
the Almighty, just and righteous God, did give him, 
man, understanding and compréhension enough to know 
what his merciful Father, the righteous and only God, 
desires him to be and do, without subjecting him to 
selfish, changeable and hired priesthood, who, during the 
dark âges hâve shrouded God's truth in nonsensical 
mystery and bigotry, from which, the would be honest 
teacher of God's truth cannot extricate himself. 

For several reasons, we don't propose, neither will 
we take up and discuss each question that is asked 
against the New Testament, by itself, the same as we 
did with the questions asked against the Old Testament. 

First. Because the New Testament was originally 
written in a language, or languages, that was spoken by 
those for whom it was written, and not in the language 
of those who wrote it, whose language was Hebrew, in 
which language the Old Testament was written, and 
which language was never used for the use of any 
heathen mythology, and was only used by the Israélites 
«tnd Jews; consequently, it cannot be perverted into 
whatever a heathen priest may choose to convert it. 



29 



434 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

Secondly. It has been so often changed and recon- 
structed that it is impossible to find the original text. 

Thirdly. Because ail, or the most of the questions 
that are raised against the New Testament, can and 
must be answered by one and the same answer, because 
they ail arise from one and the same source. The New 
Testament has been so changed and construed that it is 
contrary to nature and reason, and one answer, that 
will take away the unnatural and unreasonable parts of 
the New Testament, will be an answer to ail the ques- 
tions that the world asks against it; and that is the 
answer that we propose to give. 

The authors of the New Testament repeatedly call 
upon and refer to the authors of the Old Testament for 
the purpose of proving or demonstrating that that which 
the former hâve said was true; and we propose to do the 
same thing; we propose to prove up the New Testament 
by the Old, the same as the authors of the New Testa- 
ment did; to which no Christian possibly can or reason- 
ably will object, and to which no anti-Bible man can 
possibly and reasonably object, because we propose 
that reason itself shall give the answer. 

We will give some of the most important questions 
the world asks against the New Testament, and see 
what the authors of the Old Testament say about it; on 
whom the authors of the former call to prove the truth 
of what they say; and we will subsequently see what 
reason says about it. 

First. Why do not the several authors agrée in the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 435 

account that each of the several authors gives of the 
life and doings of Christ, from about the time that he 
was born up to the time that he was thirty years of âge? 

They agrée that he was born in Bethlehem, of 
Judea; but Matthew says: that the angel of the Lord 
told Joseph to flee, with the child and the mother, into 
Egypt; and that he took the child and the mother by 
night, and departed into Egypt; and that he staid in 
Egypt until after the death of Herod, at which time 
Christ must hâve been about thirty years old; and that 
Joseph was even then afraid to return into the land of 
Judea, and therefore dwelt in a city called Nazareth. 

But Luke says: that Christ was brought into the 
temple in Jérusalem, when he was about six or seven 
weeks old, or at the time of his mothers purification; 
and Simon, who was inspired by the Holy Ghost, pub- 
licly proclaimed in the temple, that he, the child, was 
the Christ, or the Messiah; and Anna, the prophetess, 
did the same; and that his parents went every year to 
Jérusalem; consequently, he must hâve went with them. 
Luke, also, says: that when Christ was twelve years 
old, his parents while on their way home from Jérusa- 
lem, missed the child, and returned into Jérusalem and 
found the child in the temple publicly discoursing with 
the doctors. 

What we hâve hère quoted from what Luke tells 
about the subject in question, is enough to show that 
Christ was born and publicly brought up and was well 
known in the land of Judea, and that he was not raised 
in Egypt, as Matthew says he was; hence, it is a ques- 
tion, why don't they both agrée? 



436 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The second question which the world very reason- 
ably asks is: if God desired to forgive and expiate the 
transgressions that men transgressed against Him, He 
could hâve done so without sacrificing His only one and 
well beloved Son, that He had in heaven. Reason can see 
no use for the suffering that God hath caused his only 
and most beloved son to endure. 

And the apparent unnatural and incompréhensible 
idea of the immaculate conception, is the third, and is 
the most prominent of the many questions that are 
asked and raised against the New Testament. 

The conception of the Virgin is supported by, or 
based upon, the fourteenth verse of the seventh chap- 
ter of Isaiah, that verse in the English version of 
the book of Isaiah is as foUows: "Behold, a virgin shall 
conceivey and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel. " That is mistranslated from the Hebrew 
text, as will hereafter be shown; but even that does not 
agrée with the phraseology of the same verse as given 
in the New Testament. "Behold, a virgin shall be with 
child and bring forth a son, and 'V/^^j/" shall call his 
name Immanuel." The phraseology of the New Testa- 
ment has been doctored and changed to be more in 
compliance with the unreasonable idea that prevailed 
eighteen or nineteen hundred years ago. 

Let us now see what the Hebrew text tells us about 
the same subject. The word virgin, is translated from 
the Hebrew word"Elmh" pronounced "Almoh;" before 
we question whether "Elmh" désignâtes a virgin, which 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 43/ 

we say and will elucidate that it does not, we say that 
" a virgin " is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text. Isaiah 
did not and does not say*'Elmh"as we hâve; which is inde- 
finite, and "a virgin" would be a proper translation, but 
he said "Helmh" pronounced "Hoalmoh." The letter 
"h" in Hebrew, is the same as the definite article "the" 
is in English, and if the Hebrew word "Elmh" means 
virgin, then "Helmh" or "Hoalmoh" means the virgin 
not a virgin; but the word **Elm" means a subject that 
is invisible, the letter "h" at the end of the word, as it 
is in the word "Elmh" désignâtes a subject that is used 
in the féminine gender. Job, XXI : xxviii, in speaking 
of wisdom uses the same word. The English version 
of it reads: "it is hid," but it is translated from the 
same Hebrew word that the word virgin is translated in 
the place in question. **Bthuloh" is the word that 
désignâtes virgin in Hebrew, the word "Elmh" is only 
used to designate a female, when the hidden subject 
that is spoken of, is connected with a female, as we find 
in the case of Abraham's servant, in speaking of 
Rebecca. (Genesis, chapter XXIV,) "The damsel," in 
verses, xiv, xvi and xxviii, are translated from the word 
"Nerh" and the word virgin," in verse sixteen, is trans- 
lated from the word "Bthuloh," but in the forty-third 
verse, same chapter, "The virgin cometh forth." The 
words, "the virgin," are translated from the word 
"Helmh," the same word that is in the fourteenth 
verse of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. 

And the reason why the servant of Abraham used 
the word "Elmh" in the forty-third verse is this: 
Abraham made the servant swear that he would go to 
his (Abraham's) country and to his family, and from 



438 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGIITS, 

there, and from one of his family, take a wife for his 
son Isaac. The Servant asked Abraham, in case the 
woman would not want to go with him, whether he had 
a right to arrange that Isaac should go there to live? 
Abraham said no; and told him that God will send His 
angel before the servant would be there, and that he, 
the servant, will only hâve to take the woman from 
there, and if the woman will not want to cfo with him 
then the servant will be clean or relieved from his oath. 
(Genesis chapter xxiv.) 

So the servant was no more than the vehicle that 
was to bring the woman, that the angel of the Lord was 
to sélect and engage to be the wife of Isaac. 

Hence, the servant had no choice nor responsibility. 
The mystery, or what the servant did not perceive, was, 
how he was to get the woman, that the angel was to, cr 
did sélect to be the wife of Isaac. He finally resolved 
to remain inactive and let the angel bring her to him; 
and therefore, he placed himself by the well of water, 
where the daughters of the city were coming for water, 
and said the "Nerh," or young w^oman, of whom he 
will ask to give him to drink, and she will say, drink, 
and I will also water the camels; that will be the one 
that the Lord hath prepared to be the Avife of Isaac. 
And the fact that Rebecca came just as he came to that 
conclusion, and he ascertained from her that she was 
from Abraham's family, made him conclude that she 
must be the one whom God hath selected to be the wife 
of Isaac; consequently, when he was relating to her 
parents what he said and did at the well, he used the 
Word ''Elmh" to designate Rebecca, instead of the word 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 439 

"Nerh," which word he did use at the well; and the 
reason why he did change the word was, because, at the 
well he spoke of the person, hence, he said "Nerh," 
and at the house he spoke of the uncomprehensible sub- 
ject which he could not understand. namely. how he 
was to find the one that the angel of the Lord hath 
selected; and the father and the brother of Rebecca 
told the servant, in answer to what he said to them 
about the subject, that they can say to him neither good 
nor bad; "the thing is from God. " 

And it is the same in the case of David and Saul, 
when the former undertook to fight Goliah; during the 
conversation Saul called him "Ner," youth; but after he 
saw with what boldness and spirit he went to fight him 
and after he did kill the Philistine, he, Saul, calls David 
"Elm" instead of "Ner." "Inquire whose son this strip- 
li7ig is?" (Samuel, XVII: Ivi.) The word stripling, is 
translated from the Hebrew word "Elm," the reason 
why Saul called him by that name was, because the 
unnatural and wonderful spirit, by which David acted 
was the subject about which Saul was inquiring, and 
not about David himself. So long as he spoke about 
David, he called him "Ner," a youth, but when the 
wonderful courage, of which David was the possessor, 
was spoken of the word "Elm" was used. 

There are words in every language that hâve more 
than one meaning and designate différent things, and 
man will usually apply the word to mean that thing 
with which he is most or best acquainted and known to 
him; but if the word in question forms part of a sub- 
ject or sentence, then the subject, or the other words of 
the sentence, compel the man to search for the other 
meaning of the word. 



440 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

The last part of the nineteenth verse of the thirtieth 
chapter of Proverbs, was construed by man to mean 
that what is known to man; but the sentence as well as 
the whole subject, compels men to search. No, to 
reject the misconstruction of the phrase in question, 
because it does not agrée with the rest of the subject, 
and it is perceptible to the eye, while the subject is of 
things that are wonderful and unknown; "the way 
of an eagle in the air" is wonderful and cannot be seen 
for it leaves no track; "the way of a serpent upon a 
rock" is also trackless and it leaves nothing for the eye 
to see; and "the way of a ship in the midst of the sea" 
is also imperceptible to the eye, but the fourth part of 
the subject is perceptible to the eye and is well known 
to man, and must hâve been well known to Solomon, 
(for he had a thousand wives) that sexual intercourse 
between man and woman is traceable and perceptible 
to the eye. The word "maid," (Proverbs, XXX: xix,) 
is translated from the same word "Elmh," that the word 
virgin is translated from in the fourteenth verse of the 
seventh chapter of Isaiah, and the two mistranslations 
were made for the same purpose and from the same 
cause; and it was done because it was in accordance 
with the ideas of those for whom the Bible was trans- 
lated, as it will be shown; and it answered the purpose 
for which the Bible was translated. 

The extent and the whole structure of the universe 
is indeed very wonderful and cannot be perfectly under- 
stood by man. Solomon, who was and is called the 
wisest of men, says; it was unknown to him. The word 
"Elmh" in the Hebrew language, from which the word 
"maid" in the nineteenth verse of the thirtieth chapter 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 44 1 

of Proverbs, and the word virgin, in the seventh chap- 
ter of Isaiah, in the English version of the Bible, are 
translated from, means world or universe, "Elm." 
What Solomon means was, that; the way of man in the 
universe was unknown even to him, the same as the way 
of the ships were invisible and wonderful to him, the 
same as they are to ail who contemplate about it. 

That expression of Solomon, about the way of men 
in the universe, is in accordance with what he speaks of 
man in his Ecclesiastes. In nearly every chapter of that 
book he speaks of the purpose for which man is upon 
the earth, and upon the destiny of man after he leaves 
the earth, as he said in chapter third. 

"I said in mine heart, concerning the sons of man 
* * * for that which befalleth the sons of man 

befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them; as the 
one diethj so dieth the other * * * ail go into 

one place, ail are of dust and ail turn to dust again. 
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and 
the breath of beast goeth downward to the earth?" 

Thus we see, that Solomon had contemplated the 
destiny of man and failed to ascertain "man's way in 
the Universe," after he leaves the earth, or after his 
body returns to the earth; and in Proverbs he compared 
the way of man in the universe, to the way of an eagle 
in the air; of a ship in the midst of the sea; and of a 
serpent upon the rock; ail of which are imperceptible 
to the eye. 

It is admitted by ail that the songs of Solomon, say 
one thing and mean another, and that the names of 



442 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

k . 

females, such as sisters, daughters and virgins, are used 
there to designate faith, wisdom and the knowledge of 
God; and we hâve in our préface fnlly elucidated why 
he made use of thèse names to express thoughts and 
divinity; and it is just as reasonable to say that Solo- 
mon actually meant "maids" by the word "Elmh," that 
he made use of in the thirteenth chapter of Proverbs, 
or that Isaiah meant a virgin by the use that he made 
of the same word "Elmh" in the seventh chapter of his 
book, as to say that Solomon actually meant virgins in 
the second verse of the first chapter of his Songs, where 
he made use of the same word, "Elmh" or "Elmth," 
(plural.) 

To say that Isaiah actually meant a virgin by his 
having made use of the word in question, is as unnatural 
and unreasonable as to say that Solomon meant a virgin 
and a maid by using the same word in the places before 
named, is ridiculous and unpardonably as well as des- 
picably vulgar. 

Let us now see whether Isaiah did mean, or whether 
it can be reasonably construed that he meant a virgin by 
the Hebrew word "H,E,L,M,H," pronounced "Hoal- 
moh," the "h," stands for "the." 

The word "Ho-almoh" or the virgin, is mentioned 
in a conversation between Prophet Isaiah and king 
Ahaz; and ''the virgiîi" means a certain or a definite 
virgin; hence, the virgin, (if it is meant a virgin) must 
either hâve been présent or been described before in 
the conversation. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 443 

And if a virgin was meant by the word in question, 
in the conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz, and the 
virgin was to "conceive" and bring forth a son and call 
his name "Emmanuel," then ail thèse had to take place 
before sixty-five years passed by from the time that 
Isaiah had that conversation with Ahaz, because if we 
take the whole conversation as it is literally expressed, 
then the virgin was to conceive and bring forth the son, 
and ail the rest was to take place for the purpose of 
convincing Ahaz, that "in three score and five years 
shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. " 

This is one of the many subjects that the anti-Bible 
men ask of those who are yet under the idea that pre- 
vailed at and before the time that the New Testament 
was written, which was: that females conceived from 
deities, amongst whom we are not included- for we are 
not anti-Biblical, neither do we belong to those who say 
they believe in the unreasonable and unnatural and con- 
sequently absurd idea of females conceiving and bearing 
children from deities; nor are we a part of those who 
say: because that idea is an absurdity, that, therefore, 
they cannot or will not believe in the Bible, or in what the 
Bible says. Ideas of the Bible, and the Bible itself are, 
with us, two différent and distinct things. We are for 
and with the Bible; hence, those who cleave to ideas 
must answer ail thèse questions that reason makes anti- 
Biblical men ask, but gives them no answer to the ques- 
tions that it makes them ask, because, they hâve no will 
to ask reason for an answer, or to explain to them 
the questions that it asks them and they ask others; and 
we will leave for those who say they believe in that Pagan 
idea, to answer what we hâve already asked about that 



444 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

which is supported by tlie absurd ideas of ancient Pagans, 
and we will turii our attention and appropriate our lime 
to elucidate uhat Isaiah meant, which ehicidation will 
be supported by reason and indisputable existing facts. 

In the conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz, the 
prophet told the king: "If you do not believe, surely 
you shall not be established." — (English version.) 
Hebrew text — *'If you don't believe, is because you 
are unbelievers. " The question is: what did the proph- 
et désire that the king should believe? The whole 
verse reads thus: '! And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, 
and the head of Samaria is Remalia's son, if ye will not 
believe * * * " 

It certainly cannot reasonably be said or even sup- 
posed, that he wanted Ahaz to believe that Samaria 
was the capital of Ephraim, nor that the son of Remalia 
was then reigning in Samaria. The prophet then told 
the king to ask for a sign that should convince the king 
about the subject that the prophet desired the king to 
believe in; but the king said: "I will not ask, neither 
will I tempt the Lord. " Isaiah told Anaz to ask for a 
sign, "either in the depth or in the height above." By 
the Word depth, he certainly meant the earth, and by 
the words "in the height above," he certainly could hâve 
meant nothing else than the heavens; and when Ahaz 
refused to ask for a sign, the prophet said: "The Lord 
himself shall givc you a sign;" and the sign w^as that, 
the "Elmh," or "Hoalmoh" shall conceive and bring 
forth a "God with us," or "Emmanuel;" "and before the 
child shall know to detest the evil and choose the good, 
* * * the Lord shall bring upon thee and upon 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 445 



thy people and upon thy father's house, days that hâve 
not corne from the day that Ephraim departed from 
Judali, even the king of Assyria." 

We do not deny that the above has référence to what 
Christians call the New Dispensation, but we say: if 
Christ was what some Christians say they beHeve He 
was, a Deity, and existed at the création of the world, 
then He must hâve understood enough to despise "the 
evil and choose the good," before the time that Judah 
was destroyed by the Assyrians, which was about four 
hundred years before Christ; consequently, either the 
sign of the conception of the "Elmh," that Isaiah gave 
unto Ahaz, has no référence to Christ, or Christians 
must obliterate from their minds the old nonsensical 
Pagan idea of a virgin's immaculate conception, or from 
the idea of a female conceiving a conception in her 
womb from the spirit of God, and plant their Christian 
faith upon, and explain what they call the New as well 
as the Old Testament according to and supported by 
reason and existing facts.for which purpose we will now, 
with the key of reason, open the door. 

If there is anything in the Bible that is not disputed 
either by Jew o" Christian is, that if the Jews had 
been faithful and served God as they were commanded, 
that they would hâve prospered in their land to this day. 
Their unfaithfulness was the cause of their dispersion 
and trouble. Ahaz was a wicked king; two greater 
kings than he hâve formed an alliance to make war 
against him and deprive him of his kingdom, and make 
the "son of Tabeal king in his stead;" the heart of the 
king and the hcarts of his people were moved by fear 
as the trees in the forest are movt>d by the wind. 



446 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

At that time and while he was in that feeling and 
mind, the prophet came and told him: he need not fear, 
because God had determined that, before "three score 
and five years will pass by, Ephraim shall cease to be a 
people, and that if he, Ahaz, did not believe what the 
prophet told him, was because he was an "unbeHever," 
and, consequently, he shall not be established," as the 
seventeenth verse of the chapter in question tells us the 
prophet told him. 

"God will bring upon thee and upon thy children and 
upon thy father's house, days that were not seen since 
the days that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the 
king of Assyria;" and that was to be, and was, before 
the child, "God with us," or "Emmanuel," was to know 
to choose between good and evil. 

The "Elmh" conceived and the child was born, 
when Shalmanesser, king of Assyria, carried "away 
Israël into Assyria, and put them in Halah and in 
Habor, by the river Gossan, and in the cities of the 
Medes," and had settled the land of Israël by the 
nations who knew nothing of the God of Israël; but 
necessity compelled the king of Assyria to send some 
Israélites back into the land of Israël to teach his 
people the knowledge of the God of Israël, and how to 
serve him. That took place in about twenty years from 
the time that Isaiah gave as a sign to Ahaz, the con- 
ception of the "Elmh," as a sign that Ephraim, or 
Israël, will before sixty-five years will pass by, cease to 
be a people, and that Ahaz and his people will not be 
saved if they remain in their unfaithfulness. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 44/ 

The "Immanuel" was born then, but he did not 
then, nor for a long time thereafter, know enough to 
^'refuse evil and choose the good," The idea or knowl- 
cdge of the "Immanuel" was born but it did not know 
enough to "refuse the evil" of worshiping and serving 
their Pagan deities; they did not know enough to 
''choose the good" of serving the God of Israël. That 
was not chosen before the Christian era, or New 
Dispensation begun. 

About one hundred years after the time that the 
king of Israël and his people were taken into Assyria, 
the king of Judah and his people were taken into 
Babylon, and there saw the birth of fhe child ''Imman- 
uel," by bringing the knowledge of their God to the 
kings and the people of that country; but the child did 
not then know enough to "refuse the evil and choose 
the good," or to call '' 'rny fatJier arid niy niother,'' as 
the eight chapter of Isaiah tells us the prophet had fore- 
told it would be. 



The child did not begin to call father and mother 
until about four hundred years later; that is the com- 
mencement of the time that Christians call the New 
Dispensation, and that is the time of which Isaiah 
speaks in the ninth chapter of his book 

"The people that walked in darkness saw a great 
light; they that dwell in the shadow of death, upon them 
hath the light shined, # # # f-^j. ^very bat- 

tle of warrior is with confused noise and garments rolled 
in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel 
of fire, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 



448 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 



given; * * * ^^(^ j^jg name shall be Won- 
derful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting- 
Father, the Prince of Peace. (Immanuel.) The zeal 
of the Lord of hosts will perform it. " Christian reader 
and friend, do you know by what means Isaiah says 
God will perform it? not by the means of the Pagan 
idea and belief, that a virgin will conceive in lier womb 
from the spirit of God, but that she will conceive from 
the spirit in her mind through the words of God, which 
is what the succeeding or eighth verse of the ninth 
chapter of Isaiah says; it reads thus: "The Lord sent 
a "WORD"into Jacob and ithath lighted upon Israël, and 
ail the people shall;" and as Isaiah says in the ninth 
verse of the eleventh chapter, which reads thus: *'The 
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lcrd, as the 
waters cover the sea." 

The knowledge of the Lord, with which the prophet 
had foretoid that the world will be full, and with which 
w^e see that the world is getting filled, is the conception 
that the "Elmh" was to conceive, about which Isaiah 
spoke to Ahaz, and what we now read in the seventh 
chapter of the bock of "Isaiah," the word "Elmh" 
means universe, and that is in accordance with the pro- 
position that the prophet made to the king; he told him 
to ask a sign, either in the heavens or in the earth, 
which are parts of the universe, and the universe is 
spoken of in the féminine gender, and the word con- 
ceive is, in the Hebrew as well as in the English 
language, a great deal more often used with référence 
to the mind than it is to the womb. As " Coiiceivcd and 
uttering from the heart w^ords of falsehood." (Isaiah, 
LIX: xiii:) "Behold he travaileth with iniquity, and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 449 

conceived mischief a/td brought forth falsehood. " 
(Psalm VII: xiv.) "We hâve been with child, we hâve 
been in pain, we hâve as it were, brought forth wind. " 
(Isaiahxxv: xviii.) "Because they hâve rz//^^^?//» îf^;?^^;^ 
with child.'' (Amos i: xiii.) The words "women with 
child," are ail translated from the same Hebrew word 
that the word conceived is translated from, 

We believe that we hâve shown enough to convince 
the reader that the words coîiceive^ bring forth and 
begat^ are used in the Bible and in the Hebrew 
language, as well as other languages, in speaking of the 
mind in connection with an idea or a subject, oftener 
than it is used in speaking of the conception of the 
womb. 

The great philosopher and linguist, B. Spinoza, 
whom Ingersoll and Adler assert to hâve been what 
they claim to be, (but with less cause and reason than 
we hâve to call the former of the two claimants, an 
orthodox Christian, and the latter an orthodox Jew.) 
He. Spinoza, in his "Ethics on the Mind or Soûl," says: 
"By an idea I understand a ''conception of the soûl" 
which the soûl forms, because it is a thinking being. 
I say conception^ rather than a perception, because the 
word perception seems to imply that what is possibly 
affected by an object, whilst conception, appears to 
express an action of the soûl; * * * to God; 
therefore, belongs an attribute, the conception of which 
involves ail individuals. " 

Yes, Christian friend, the application of the word 
conceived, to the mind and soûl, and to reason from 

9 2 



03 



450 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 

the mind or soûl of man, to Him who gave to man his 
soûl, is not a novelty, it has been used by the prophets 
very frequently and to great advantage, and it can be 
used now to a still greater advantage, because reason 
has a better hold of man now than it had then; that is, 
reason has a greater number of men under her control 
now than she had in times gone by, and men are more 
subject to reason now than they were in former times. 

Yes, reader the word virgin in the English version 
of the Bible, in every place, where, in the Hebrew text 
is represented or expressed by the word "Elmh," means 
either the universe or an incompréhensible or imper- 
ceptible subject that is connected with the person 
designated by that word. If that incompréhensible 
subject is connected with a female, or can, according to 
the rulés of grammar, be classed in the féminine gender, 
then it is called "Elmh," and when it is connected with 
a maie, or when in accordance with the rules of gram- 
mar, it can or ought to be used in the masculine gender, 
then it is "Elm." 

And that word désignâtes, and is the one that is 
mostly used to designate the universe, and the reason 
why the same word is used to designate incomprehensi- 
bility and the universe, is, because the universe itself 
is both incompréhensible and imperceptible; and for the 
purpose of proving what we hâve hère said, we hâve 
heretoforebroughtup the word in question; both "Elmh" 
and "Elm," féminine and masculine, form the very first 
part of the Bible; the book of Genesis, and trom Proverbs 
and Isaiah and others, which constitutes nearly the 
centre and about the last part of the Bible; ano wc call 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 45 1 

upon and challenge any man, Christian or Jew, to show 
us a place in the Bible where the word "Elmh" can, in 
accordance with reason and common sensé, be construed 
to mean a woman and not the universe or an idea. 

Let him explain according to reason, the twenty- 
fîfth verse of the sixty-eighth chapter of Psalms, which 
reads thus: "The singers went before the players and 
instruments foUowed after; amongst them were the 
damsels;" which we give hère as given in the English 
version of the Bible, and which is a mistranslation from 
the Hebrew text. The whole verse in the Hebrew 
Bible consists of but seven words, and the English ver- 
sion of that verse consists of eighteen words, and a 
Verbatim translation of the seven Hebrew words of that 
verse, would read thus: 

"Hâve met,^ singers,'' after^ musicianîers/ within^ 
Elmth,^ 'damsels^ dramming/ 

Let any reader try to add eleven words to the seven 
that constitute the verse in question in the Hebrew 
Bible, and he can change it into whatever he pleases, 
and he will find, if he is honest and sincère, that 
it will please him best to make that verse read and 
convey to him the idea that he was taught and 
became habituated to believe that that verse does con- 
vey; and that was the case with the translators of the 
Bible from the Hebrew into the English language; they 
probably were honest and sincère, but their knowledge 
of the Hebrew language was, at that time, a great deal 
more imperfect than w^e find that that class of men pos^ 
sess to-day, as we hâve shown in the case of Pro- 



452 A COLLECTION OF TÎIOUGIITS, 



fessor Smith's lectures; hence, they hâve translatée! the 
Bible into the English language and hâve inserted in 
the seven Hebrew words eleven of their own habituai 
thoughts and belief; and that is the cause that créâtes 
incompréhension, mystery and infidelity. 

The Bible can certainly not be held responsible for 
the eleven eighteenths of the thoughts and educated 
belief of those who hâve translated the Bible, and hâve 
in that way made the Bible say what they were educated 
and hâve habituated themselves to believe that the 
Bible does say. 

And that class of men are as numerous among the 
Jews as they are among the Christians; hence we hâve 
in our introduction said: that so long as the Bible is 
studied for sectarian and professional purposes, so long 
will the Bible not be understood and will create unbelief 
and infîdelity. 

This and the like of ît are the évidence of the 
authors of the Old Testament, whom the authors of the 
New Testament call upon to prove the truth of what 
the latter say. 

But, we are well aware that some of our readers, 
especially thèse who hâve been taught and hâve habit- 
uated themselves to believe that there is a great différ- 
ence between the Old and the New Testaments, and 
that the Jews do not believe in the latter, or in what 
Christians hâve been taught to call the New Dispensa- 
tion, will say: this is an explanation given by a Jew 
who does not believe in the so called New Testament, 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 453 

and will, therefore, not allow liis own reason to teach 
him the Bible by the light that our "key hole" throws 
upon it. 

And we know that others will say: "why, if the 
Word from which the word virgin is translated, means 
universe and not virgin, or any other female, then there 
was no Christ, no Redeemer, no Messiah." We, there- 
fore, think that it is proper for us and bénéficiai to them, 
that we shall hère tell and explain to them that thèse 
ideas and beliefs are only habituai and not real, neither 
is it based on anything that is in the Bible. Our 
explanation is not a Jewish explanation: it is the con- 
clusion and practice "of the advanced and studious 
Christian of to-day, the same as it always was known to 
the Jew, and it is the true unadulterated, unmixed and 
unchanged text of the Bible, and above ail, it is in 
accordance with what reason and nature say the Bible 
ought to be. 

The Christian Unitarian reads and studies the same 
Bible that the rest of the Christians do; he does not 
find in the Bible a spiritual Christ, nor a spiritual Mes- 
siah. The Christian Universalist also reads the same 
Bible and finds in it salvation for ail. 

The Seventh Day Baptist Christian, also reads and 
studies the same Bible, and he finds in the Bible that 
Saturday and not Sunday is the day of rest. We may 
be told that thèse three sects are comparatively young 
and local; we will, therefore, add to them the Jew, who 
is the most gênerai and the most ancient of ail the sects: 
and each of thèse three Christian sects believes part of 



454 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

what the Jew believes; hence, it cannot reasonably be 
said that our explanation is a Jewish explanation, 
neither can the Christian sects be charged with being 
young and local. 

The Word Messiah means annointed; Cyrus, king 
of Persia, is called Messiah: "Thus saith the Lord to 
his Annointed (Hebrew text, Messiah), to Cyrus." — 
Isaiah 45:1. The Jewish faith in a Messiah is based 
upon the thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel, or the vis- 
ion of the dry bones; and there it plainly says that king 
David himself shall be the Messiah; hence, it is not a 
spiritual Messiah, as Christians hâve habituated them- 
selves to believe; and he, David, is to reign again after 
the day of résurrection. 

*^And they shall dwell in the land that I hâve given 
unto Jacob my servant. * * they and their 

children's children forever: and my servant David shall 
be their prince forever. — Ezekiel 37:26, 

What the Christian calls the New Testament is 
new to him, but it is not, nor never was, new to the 
Jew It is as old to the Jew as his father and founder 
Abraham, is. 

It is the road in which Abraham and Isaac hâve 
traveled during the third day of their journey to or in 
the land of "Moriah;" and it was shown unto Abraham 
in a vision before Isaac was born. 

To understand and explain Christianity one must 
understand the foUowing: 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 455 

And he said unto him "I am the God that brought 
thee out of "Ur" (fiâmes) of the Chaldees * * * 

and he said unto him: "Take an heifer of three years 
old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove and 
a young pigeon; and he took unto him ail thèse and 
divided them in the midst and laid each pièce one 
against another, but the birds* divided he not; and 
when the fowls came down upon the carcasses Abraham 
drove them away; and when the sun was going down 
a deep sleep fell upon Abraham; and lo, a horror of 
great darkness fell upon him, and he said unto Abraham: 
know of a surety that thy seed be strangers in a land 
that is not theirs." 

The ** heifer," the "goat," and the "ram," designate 
the three captivities, which Godhad foretold to Abraham 
that his seed will hâve to endure, namely: the captivity 
in Egypt, in Babylon and in Rome, before they will be 
able to establish the knowledge in the human mind of 
the one God that brought him (Abraham) out of Ur 
(flarne) of the Chaldees. Each of thèse three nations 
was the greatest nation in the world at the time that 
each of them took possession of the seed of Abraham, 
and no one of thèse nations knew anything of a spirit- 
ual God; they were to be, as each of them subsequently 
was divided in the midst of their greatness when they 
had the least apparent reason to think of thêir destruct- 
ion, and when the world feared them and each one of 
them in its time the most; and that was the time when 
the "fowl," the knowledge of the spiritual God, came to 



*The Word "fowl" is in the singular number in the Hebrew text; neither 
is it called "fowls." The word "raven" is substituted for the words "turtle- 
dove" and "pigeon." 



456 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

them. You can find no time in history when Egypt was 
as great and had so little to fear from other nations as 
it was when her king, Pharaoh, told Moses: "I do not 
know the Lord and I will not send the children of 
Israël." Then the "fowl" came upon his "carcass." 
He had shortly thereafter acknowledged that he posses- 
sed the knowledge of the Lord but did not embrace it. 
Where is even the carcass of Egypt now? where and 
what has it been since that time? 

The pride and strength of haughty Babylon was at 
the highest point of her ambition when her kings, 
Nebuchadnezzar and his son, Belshazzar, made death 
to be the punishment of any one who will ask anything 
from anyone besides of the king, for which crime three 
of the sons of Abraham were cast into the fire, which 
was the mode of punishment that existed in Chaldea 
even in the days of Abraham; and when that sort of 
punishment was found to be inafflictive upon the pos- 
terity of Abraham as it was upon Abraham himself. 
The lion's den was substituted for the crime of praying 
to the God of Abraham instead of to the god, or king, 
of Babylon, and which punishment was endured by 
Daniel for praying to his God, or to the God of his 
ancestor Abraham; but nevertheless the ^'fowl came 
up," the spirit prevailed. Where is Babylon now? 
where has she been since? what has become of her 
carcass? 

The glory and pride of Rome was higher than the 
highest peak of the Alpine heights when Titus brought 
her the captives of Judea in his triumphal train, and 
when the "sun" (the temple) of the posterity of Abra- 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 45/ 

ham "went down;" "And it came to pass that when the 
Sun went down and it was dark, behold a smoking 
fu7'nace and a hurning lamp that passed between those 
pièces." (Genesis XV: viii: xviii.) 

Abraham was shown the great "smoking furnace" 
that was prepared for his seed in and by Rome, No 
wonder that the smoke thereof is coming out yet for 
the fire has been kept up for the last eighteen or 
ninteen hundred years, and was fed by the ignited fuel 
of ignorance, inquisitions and Jésuites; but, thanks to 
God, the burning lamp that passed between the pièces 
*'of the carcasses," which was shown to Abraham, is now 
seen by ail and gives light to nearly ail. They ail see 
the light of God, though it is somewhat obscured by 
the smoke of the smoking furnace that has consumed 
the carcasses of thèse three nations, and has until now, 
madc the posterity of Abraham very smoky and hot 
îndeed, but they are not more singed than Abraham, 
Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah were when they came 
out of the "burning furnace" "or fiâmes (ur) of the 
Chaldees." 

The seed ot Abraham, as a class, attached them- 
selves to God, and were always afflicted; hence were 
always in a plaintive mood and as they were to be 
among the nations and endure the»e troubles; the turtle 
dove that Abraham saw in the cartoon of the future, 
designated his posterity, whose affection and love for 
the God of Abraham, is and has been constant, even in 
the thickest of their trouble, as the turtle dove, which 
'S celebrated for the constancy of its affection, and is 
regarded as the most perfect emblem for connubial 



458 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

attachment, and is frequenting the thickest parts of the 
woods, and its note is plaintive and tender. (See 
Songs of Solomon, Ii: xiv.) 

The "young pigeon" désignâtes those who hâve 
but lately attached themselves to the love of the God 
whom the old dove Israël has served so long and so con- 
stantly. 

And the fact that there were two birds in the vision^ 
and it speaks of but one "fowl" (the raven) that came 
upon the carcasses, désignâtes two facts: 

First. — The unity of the purpose that prevails now 
among those who serve and love the God of Abraham. 
The religious purpose of the non-Jews is the same as 
that of the Jew, and that is to make the whole human. 
race to know, to love and to worship the God of 
Abraham. 

Secondly. — Whenever the young "fowl" had tried to 
settle itself upon the carcasses of the nations that were 
and are no more, that is, whenever their mind tried or 
tries to assume anything of the old Pagan mythologies, 
Abraham or his seed drove and drive them off from it. 
St. Jérôme, with the help that he received from the seed 
of Abraham, has translated the Bible from Hebrew into 
Latin, and thereby drove off the young "fowl" of the 
Church to a certain extent from the carcasses of Paganism. 
Luther, who drove the Church a great distance off from 
Paganism, was aided by the teaching and writings of 
the Jew Rosenmueller, otherwise called Rashi; and the 
translation of the English Bible was mainly guided by 
the grammar and lexicon of the Jew R. David Kimchi. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 459 

And the reason that the heifer, the goat and the 
ram were each to be three years old are to designate the 
unity of God. Three times three are nine, and nine is 
the greatest unit, no other figure than three is its factor 
nor multiple, and the figure three has no other factor 
nor multiple than the unit one; and multiply the figure 
nine by whatever figure you please, the product when 
added together will always be nine; for example, 
twice nine are eighteen (i8,) one and eight are nine, 
(9,) four times nine are thirty-six (36,) three and six are 
nine (9,) nine times nine are eigthy-one (81,) eight and 
one are nine. 

And in addition the nine is still a more mysterious 
figure. For the purpose of illustration, add any two 
figures together and then add the sum total together and 
neither one of the figures that hâve constituted the 
ingrédients will come out, i. e, 5+6=11, and 1 + 1^2, 
7 + 6=13, 1+3^4, 7 + 8=15, 1 + 5=6, but when you 
add anything to nine you will find that the figure which 
you add to it cornes out and the nine takes nothing from 
it nor adds anything to it: for example, 9 + 2=11, i + i 
=2,9 + 3=12, 1+2=3,9 + 4=13, 1+3=4, 9 + 9=18, 
1+8=9. 

"I am the Lord thy God." (A unit.) "Thou shalt 
hâve no other Gods before me." (You can add nothing 
to the greatest unit nine.) "Thou shalt not make unto 
thee any graven images or likeness * * * Thou 
shalt not bow to them nor serve them." You cannot 
multiply the greatest Unit Nine but that it will come 
out a nine! The Bible, which teaches man the knowl- 
edge of God, is a science, and ail the science that man 
knows of are demonstrated by figures; and the scientific 



46o A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

knowledge that man has of God, which he can only 
obtain from the Bible, is also demonstrated by figures; 
and for the purpose of demonstrating that knowledge 
to man. Abraham, who was the discoverer of the 
knowledge and who has practiced it during his life time 
and has, in the land of "Mariah," bound his seed to 
practice and teach man the same knowledge — to him, 
Abraham, was revealed the science of figures for the 
purpose that he might be able to demonstrate to man the 
knowledge of the unity of God, and for that purpose 
he brought the science of figures into Egypt. 

Faith, says reason, is gooa anc proper to appiy or 

use about a thing that is not yet in existence, but when 

the thing is already in existence you must answer from 

the thing itself in proportion to the knowledge that you 

hâve of it. When Columbus spoke of finding a new 

world by sailing due west, it was proper for men to say 

we hâve faith in what he says and form some idea of the 

world in question, according to his ideas, fancy and 

tinderstanding; and they who had no faith in what he 

said could with impunity laugh at and ridicule what he 

said about it. When Professor Morse spoke of making 

a telegraph, men could do and hâve done the same. 

Some believed what he said and others laughed at 

and ridiculed what he said; but, where is he that 

laughs at the ideas of the great discoverer and inventor? 

Men now simply study and think of the cause that 

brought the great ideas into their heads. If the man 

who had faith in what the great discoverer said, had 

been alive to-day, he w^ould be ashamed to tell the 

* 
cause that made him believe what Columbus said, unless 

it was a belief without cause, which is called "blind 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 461 

faithj" the same is with Christianity. If it had been 
a subject that was not yet in existence it would be 
proper for man to say: I belicve in what the Bible or 
anyone else says about it, and it might be proper for 
others to disbelieve it, and he v^ho believed it might 
with impunity say: it will be this, that or another thing, 
according to his understanding and fancy. But, Christ- 
ianity is now as much an acting and bénéficiai fact to 
man, nay, more than the discovery of America and 
the telegraph and ail the discoveries and inventions- 
which men hâve discovered and invented. Man must 
judge Christianity now according to the doings thereof. 

The knowledge and fancy that men hâve had at the 
time when Christianity first made her appearance and 
became a visible and acting fact, justified them in believ- 
ing that it was sent for the purpose of destroying the 
Jews and abrogate their laws as well as their existence, 
which the church of Rome had tried to accomplish with 
ail her power and might, for centuries long and which 
was in fuU force to the middle part of the seventeenth 
century; but to-day when it is plainly seen and which 
cannot be denied, that Christianity has not only saved 
Judaism, but it has taken upon itself the troublesome 
mission of Judaism, which is to make the world know, 
love and serve the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 
or Israël or the Jews. The fact that where Christianity 
has no sway, there the Jew has no existence and where 
the Jew has no existence Christianity does not appear. 
It is true there are a few Jews in Turky, but they are 
planted there by the protection of the Christian nations. 

At the end of the seventeenth century Christianity 
began to pick the egg shell which surrounded her and 



462 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 

is now on her "pigeon wings," high up in thc spirit of 
the one God, and her youngest offsprings are the Unitar- 
ians and Universalists, who are now within hand-reach- 
ing distance of Judaism and thousands of miles away 
from old Romanism, with vast océans of troublesome 
waters between them Now is not the time to question 
what Christianity is, but it is the time to study, explain 
and reveal the cause that brought bénéficiai Christianity 
to men. 

Christianity has established itself in the world under 
the same circumstances in three différent stages, the 
same as Judaism had established itself; both hâve 
established themselves for the same purpose and by the 
same laws of nature that men grow up in the world, 
namely: in three différent stages of life, from the time 
man perceives the light until he is twenty or twenty 
five, which embraces his childhood and youth, during 
which time he learns to walk, to talk and conceive ideas 
in his mind he delineates from his eye; he forms his ideas 
from the pictures which his eyes see. 

During the second stage, the ideas which man has in 
his mind germinate and expand, and he increases his 
stock of ideas by practice and hearing. And during 
the third stage of manhood, which is from fifty and 
upwards, or during old âge, the man only contemplâtes 
and refines the knowledge he had acquired up to that 
time. 

The childhood and youth of Judaism begun at the 
first stage of Abraham, that lasted until the time of 
Moses, at which time it was old enough and strong 
enough to go to school, Moses and the rest of the 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 463 

prophets were the teachers. The sacrifices were the 
pictures from which Judaism drew her knowledge of 
God; thèse continued in full force until they started to 
Babylon, which was the commencement of the second 
stage of the national Hfe of Judaism. The teachers 
(the prophets) were discharged. The practice of the 
sacrifice was left at the option of him who wanted to 
use them. The "Urim and Thummim," the power by 
which the priests could foretell events and décide ques- 
tions of law, was taken from them; ail questions of law 
was left to the "Sannedrim," an assembly of seventy- 
one men, who were chosen from among the most 
learned men in the nation, who used to décide ail 
questions by vote, and the majority ruled, and hâve 
thus been compelled to habituate themselves to dépend 
upon their own and upon what they hâve learned 
during the time that the school was kept up. At last 
the third day journey of Abraham and Isaac into the 
land of "Moriah" approached. The "horror of the 
great darkness" that Abraham saw in the vision of 
dividing the "heifer," the "goat" and the "ram," and 
driving away the "fowF'from the "carcasses," fell upon 
them; they had to take into their hands the "fire and 
the knife" that their father Abraham took or thought 
he took after he saw the ''place from a distance'' in the 
vision, and had to place upon themselves "the wood" 
that Abraham in his vision thought he ^^placed upon his 
son Isaac;'' and they had to prépare themselves to offer 
the sacrifice, represented byand foretold in the visionary 
oflfering that Abraham made of his '"'only son whom he 
lovedy Isaac.'' 

Rome, or rather Europe, was the place that Abraham 



464 A COLLECTION OF TIIOUGHTS, 

saw, and to which place his seed were then preparing- 
themselves to go. 

They knew it for the prophets had foretold it, the 
same as they hâve foretold the journey of the second 
day into Babylon, long before the time came. 

They hâve not read the Bible for the purpose of 
answering this or that creed, and they hâve not under- 
stood their past and future hîstory, the record of their 
business and duty upon earth, and the contract that 
their father Abraham had made with God, which con- 
tract they were to carry out. They hâve not read nor 
understood thèse documents in accordance with the con- 
struction of this or another commentator, as it is at the 
présent time. 

They understood the book of Daniel perfectly, they 
hâve well understood the book of Isaiah, he had fore- 
told them and has explained unto them the third day of 
their journey, or the third stage of their life, the same 
as he did explain to them the second day of their 
journey, which was into Babylon or Assyria. 

"For thus saith the Lord;" says Isaiah. "My 
people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn 
there," (first day's journey,) "and the Assyrians oppres- 
sed them wdthout cause," (second day's journey,) "and 
now" (the third day's journey,) "what hâve I hère, saith 
the Lord, that my people are taken away for naught? 
They that rule over them howl, saith the Lord, and my 
name is blasphemed the whole day continually."— Isaiah 
54:2. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 465 

They hâve understood the whole book of Isaiah as 
well as they did the fifty-second and fifty-third chapter 
of that book, and they hâve understood perfectly what 
prophet Micah said in the fifth chapter of his book, which 
reads thus: 

"And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of 
many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers 
upon the grass that tarrieth not for man, neither waited 
for the sons of men: and the remnant of Jacob shall be 
among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a 
lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion 
among the flocks of sheep, whom, if he go through, 
both treadeth down and teareth in pièces and none can 
deliver." 

AU the seed of Jacob consisted of thirteen tribes. AU 
the Jews that are now in existence, or ail of whom the 
world knows, are the descendants of but two tribes, of 
the tribe of Judah and of Benjamin; hence they are the 
undisputed remnant 'of Jacob, of whom prophet Micah 
speaks; they are among the Gentiles, they hâve torn 
out and trodden down Paganism from among the Gen- 
tiles, as a lion devours a flock of sheep; they hâve not 
tarried nor waited for man; they hâve made the knowl- 
edge of their God grow in the minds, and the love and 
worship to grow in the hearts of the Gentiles as a dew 
from the Lord and as showers make the grass to grow, 
ail thèse were well known to and perfectly well under- 
stood by the Jews during the rest that they had enjoyed 
between their second andthird day's journey; and before 
the "sun" of their second day's rest (during the time of 
the second temple) went down; ''Before it becante dark^^ 



466 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS,. 

they saw the ''smoking furnace'' of Rome and the 
''burning lamp that passed between those pièces'' 

The lamp represents the light that the Gentiles hâve 
perceived and which leads them to the knowledge and 
service of the same God that the remnant of Jacob 
serves, and which the prophets had foretold long before. 
Such men as John the Baptist, the indomitable Paul and 
the rest of the disciples and the like of them begun 
to prépare the heart of the nation to make itself ready 
for the last day's journey, or for the last sacrifice. 

The remnant of Jacob had at that time already learn- 
ed to know that his God desires no other sacrifice than 
the purity of man's heart, and has, during the time of 
the second temple, ceased to sacrifice to and serve other 
deities, which he used to do in his younger days, during 
the time of the first temple; and he saw that it was his 
unavoidable duty to teach the knowledge that he had 
obtained to the rest of mankind. 

How to commence that task, how to start a school 
for that purpose, was easier asked than answered. To 
persuade the Gentiles to become Jews was impossible; 
it was tried in Babylon and it did not work, Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Belshazzar and the Persian kings, who became 
the rulers and possessors of Syria; Cyrus and others 
hâve time after time proclaimed and decreed that the 
God of Israël is the true Deity, and hâve aided to 
rebuild His temple in Jérusalem; but the more that the , 
Kings hâve proclaimed, the more hâve the people hated 
the Jews, and the more hâve the nations cleaved to their 
ideas and idolatry. It was seen and understood that it 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 467 

was necessary to devise some method that should meet 
their ideas halfvvay, and which should apparently be 
against Judaism ; and shall reconcile itself with the ideas 
of the gentiles who were to be benefited by it. Christ^ 
whoever he was, devised the much desired and need- 
ed method: "A virgin conceived, begat a son and 
called him God with us," (to help us) an idea which 
Isaiah had enigmatically predicted and expressed, but 
ît is nevertheless figuratively true; but it was not pol- 
jcy for the whole nation of Israël to assume and ad- 
vocate that grand idea, because it would hâve des- 
troyed the purpose for which it was devised and predict- 
ed, and there could hâve been no ground for the 
crucification and suffering which was so much a part 
of the belief and ideas that the gentiles of that time 
had entertained, as it was common for them to believe 
that their deities were the natural maie parents of some 
children that some of their females bore; even Alexander 
the Great allowed himself to be proclaimed to be the 
son of Jupiter for the purpose that the nations, whom 
he Vv^ent to conquer, and who believed that their kings 
and queens were the children of their deities, shall hâve 
more fear of him and be more ready to submit to him ; 
and that same belief was common among the Romans. 

The plan was adopted. The virgin mind of the 
world conceived an idea^ the conception of that virgin 
can be no other than Immaculate, and she (the mind) 
can conceive from nothing else than from the spirit, 
The Idéal Child that the virgin mind brought forth 
was and is, "God with us," which words are represented 
and expressed in the Hebrew language by the word 
"Immanuel." 



468 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, • 

The tempting of Christ by the devil and the offer 
that the latter had made, or is represented that he had 
made, to give the whole world to Christ if the latter 
would serve him, was advocated and inserted in the 
New Testament for the purpose of benefiting those 
who used to believe in and serve evil spirits. It showed 
them that Christ was mightier than the devil, because 
the latter could not compel, nor persuade, neither bribe 
the former to worship him. Hence He, Christ, was 
mightier and more worthy to be worshiped, and more 
reliable to dépend upon than the devil. The Israélites 
themselves were weaned from that service and belief by 
substituting for them the sending of a kid once a year 
into t^e "désert unto the Devil,'* 

And for the same purpose Christ was called the Son 
of God, because that expression was in compliance with 
the then prevailing ideas and belief, namely: that their 
rulers and protectors were, and had to be, the sons of 
their deities. 

Christianity did not take root in Asia as well as it 
did in Europe. Why? because the teachers of Chris- 
tianity, the Jews, went to Europe. The strife that the 
Jews used to hâve among themselves about the subject 
in Europe, was as bénéficiai to the pupils of Christianity 
as the debating about a subject, pro and con, by two 
teachers, which is very often done for the purpose of 
benefiting those that it is desired should acquire some 
knowledge about the subject that is or was debated. 

And the debate that the Jews kept up between them- 
selves made the pagans believe that Christianity is not 
Judaism. The bringing of Christianity into the world. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 469 

wliich is so bénéficiai to mankind, was accomplished by 
and through the same methods that Judaism was 
brought into existence; and both were brought into the 
world for one and the same purpose, and that was done 
to make man know his Creator, love his benefactor, the 
one and only God, and to love his fellow men as he, 
man, loves himself. 

The practice of sacrificing human beings unto the 
pagan deities was in fuU force at the time that Abra- 
ham, the father of the Jewish nation and the founder 
of Judaism, came into the world; he labored hard to 
convince the men of his time that there is but one God, 
and that that one God does not désire human sacrifices, 
and that he hath no pleasure in them. For the purpose 
of weaning otf the human race froni sacrificing human 
beings, animal sacrifices were established; and for the 
purpose of convincing men that God is more pleased 
with an animal sacrifice than He is with the sacrifice of 
a human being, was represented, to man that Abra- 
ham led his only son, whom he loved, to sacrifice him 
tmto his God, but God hath rather chosen a sheep for 
his sacrifice than the beloved Isaac. That was given to 
man in which he was to look as in a mirror; in it man's 
mind was to behold the object that it needs to delineate 
from and to contemplate upon; and that it should for a 
timie feed men's habit to which they hâve habituated 
themselves to sacrifice to their deities: that lasted up to 
the time that Christianity, or more properly speaking 
the outward appearance or mirror of Christianity, was 
brought before the eye and mind of man.* 



*(We hâve in a former chapter shown that ail the prophets and men of 
great minds, whose minds could delineate of the outward appearance of 
the picture or mirror to its reality, hâve ail spoken against sacrifices.) 



470 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

At that time the descendants of Abraham, the in- 
venter of animal sacrifices, or the picture of it, hâve 
clearly perceived and understood that God, hath no more 
désire for and is not more pleased with animal sacrifices 
than He is or ever was with sacrificing human beings, 

To make a full end of ail kinds of sacrifices, it was 
necessary to show to the world a greater sacrificial mir- 
ror or picture, than the sacrificial picture or mirror of 
Abraham's readiness and willingness of sacrificing his 
only son. No greater sacrifice (or picture of one) could 
be made than for God to sacrifice His "only and well 
beîoved son," which idea was perfectly in accordance 
with the ideas that the human race in gênerai then had 
of God. 

The picture of animal sacrifices lasted for about two 
thousand years, that is from the time of Abraham until 
the destruction of the second temple; some men hâve 
used it up to that time, and others had stopped using 
it long before that time; and the picture of God sacri- 
ficing "His only Son," which was made that it should 
answer the purpose of a mirror, in which the gentiles 
could look and perceive the reality of it, had also lasted 
about two thousand years. Some men, from the force 
of habit, without reason, are using it yet; but there are 
millions and millions of men and women whose reason 
controls their habit and will, hâve perceived the reality 
and hâve stopped using the mirror of the subject in 
question. 

The idea and behef that God had a son was almost 
universal among men at the time in question. 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 471 

And the Jews, or the disciples of Christ, took 
advantage of the ignorance of the people at that time, 
the same as the missionaries of the présent time do 
when they go to preach the Gospel, or plant the idea of 
Christianity among the Indians or pagans of to-day. 
They make the prevailing ideas and belief which they 
find to prevail among thèse pagans, serve them as the 
vehicle on which they convey and by which they dem- 
onstrate to them Christianity for the time being, and 
when the proper time comes, when the pagan learns 
enough of Christianity he then throws away the tools or 
methods by which he had acquired the knowledge of 
true Christianity; and we believe that Christians hâve 
learned enough to throw away the method by which the 
knowledge of God and true Christianity had been con- 
veyed and demonstrated to them, to assume the spirit 
of Christianity and crawl out of the shell thereof. 

So long as Christianity was in her infancy and 
youth, it was necessary to feed her mind with picturcs, 
but she has now changed to manhood and reason. 
The female child loves her parents with her whole heart 
until her heart tells her that she was born and raised 
for a différent purpose than to play with her mother's 
apron. Her mind conceives from the natural longings 
of her heart that;>she has to take her station in the 
world to accomplish the purpose for which she was 
born, raised and educated; can the parents succeed if 
they attempt to refrain her from carrying out the natural 
désire of the heart, and keep her from giving birth to the 
conception which her mind had conceived? Let ex- 
périence answer that question, and let Christians, who 
insist in making their children continually and forever 



472 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS 

play with the idéal veil of Abraham sacrificing his only 
son, and with the abundance of sacrifices we read of 
in the Old Testament, which served Christianity in her 
infancy and youth, the same as picture books and toys 
serve to keep the children in the house and then in 
school. So long as Christianity was satisfied to play 
with thèse toys; she loved her mamma and papa with 
a childish love for the great sacrifice that they made for 
her, namely: that of the Father sacrificing the only son. 
Let Christians who insist on keeping their children at 
the same toys and pictures, when their educated minds 
hâve taught their human and charitable hearts to feel 
for the brother that was sacrificed; and when reason 
unceasingly whispers to them that God, the Father, is 
too merciful to do such a thing, that it was only" a pict- 
ure bird and not a bird." Let them, we say, try to 
keep their children at it, they will soon see how many 
of their grown up children will stay within their house 
and play with the toys that they hâve habituated them- 
selves to play with during their childhood. 

Imprisoned thoughts and ideas are the same as a 
mighty stream of water kept by an embankment or 
dyke; as soon as it makes an opening it will go through 
and wash away everything that it finds in its way. 

t 
The sun and moon are the two great luminaries that 
give light to man's eyes and enable him to perform 
everything that he needs for his body, and they enable 
the earth, the mother of man, to produce everything 
that her child (man) needs during the time that he 
dépends upon his mother, (earth) and needs her aid: 
and the Bible is to the soûl of man, what the sun and 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 473 

moon are to his body; it illuminâtes man's mind, and it 
enables him to provide himself with ideas and neces- 
sities which the soûl needs, or will need when she 
will return to her father, which takes place at the same 
time that the body returns to the womb of its mother 
earth. 

The moon draws her light from the sun; neverthe- 
less there are causes in nature that produce éclipses, 
during which time the moon obscures the light of the 
sun; the Bible is the same; the only light that the New 
Testament has is what it draws from the Old. The 
Biblical and religious éclipses that took place during 
the dark âges, were also the effects of certain causes of 
nature not known to every man. That was revealed to 
Abraham in the vision of the carcasses, which was 
about two thousand years before the iîrst religious 
éclipse took place. The sun of reason shines in his full 
splendor upon ail except those whose sight has become 
weakened, because they hâve dwelt in the ecliptic dark- 
ness so long that their eyes cannot endure the bright 
splendor of the sun of reason as it shines at the hour of 
mid-day; they therefore choose to dwell in their shelter 
of faith, which became so weak from the attack, that the 
penetrating heat of reason had made on it that it affords 
no shelter for those who claim to dwell in it. 

It is very proper to ascribe faith to things for which 
we hâve no reason to ascribe. A child must hâve faith 
în its parents; nature compels the child to hâve faith in 
îts parents so long as the child is guided by nothing 
else than by nature, but as soon as the child obtains 
reason and éducation for its guides it stops depending 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 



upon the faith that it liad in its parents, reason tells 
him and them that they are children no longer; it tells 
them and teaches them to dépend upon themselves, and 
to honor and love their parents for taking care of them 
during the time that they had nothing but faith to 
dépend upon. 

Light îs very injurions to the eyes of babes and 
young children as well as to grown persons who hâve 
never been out in the sun, but they who are out in the 
rays of the sun at noon time, will not object to the 
shining sun of reason which gives growth and ripens 
each and every Biblical and religions plant, and makes 
the "greater light (the Old Testament) shine during the 
day time" like the sun "and the lesser light (the New 
Testament) shine by night as the moon. 

To say that He who made the sun to shine during 
the day and to lend his reflecting light to the moon that 
she may shed her silvery light upon the earth during 
the night; to say that He desires that man, the image 
of Him, his Maker, God, desires that man shall always 
abide by faith, or by what he was told of the Bible or 
religion and of his duty to his Maker, without ever 
attempting to convince himself why he has, or should 
hâve faith, so that he may convince others that they 
may also hâve faith, is the same as telling that God 
desired that the sun shall always be and remain where 
he is at the break of day, and the moon to be and 
remain where she is at twilight. 

What benefit would man dérive from either? he 
could never behold day nor night, The Bible and 



OR KEY tO SCRIPTURE. 475 

religion are both "life and death" to man; it is his life, 
when he understands it and performs his duty in accord- 
ance with it; it is death to him when he fails to perform 
his duty in accordance therewith. Will any Christian 
say that the merciful, righteous and just God will punish 
man for not doing his duty while he was on earth and 
He, (God) gave to man no power to know, and forbade 
him to inquire what his duty was to be while he was on 
earth, but subjected him to faith; and was to form his 
faith from w^hat others hâve said; and during the time 
that he, man, was on earth he could not find two men 
that would tell him the same thing, or to explain to him 
the same subject alike? would that be in accordance 
with mercy? would that be in accordance with right- 
eousness? would that be in accordance with justice? 
w^ould that be in accordance with our moral perception 
of God? 

God gave to man reason, which is the offspring of 
the soûl, and the soûl is a part of God; man must hâve 
faith also, because faith is the power that subjugates the 
evil inclinations of man's heart, the will which man has 
long before he obtains reason, and which grows with 
him as he grows; but as soon as man becomes the 
possessor of reason and delivers to reason his will 
which he has formed through faith, then he becomes a 
man, the image of his Maker, he cannot be misled in 
matters appertaining to his duty, the same as the man 
of mère faith can be misled. 

Reader, this is not a new doctrine, it is older than 
Christianity. Christianity was ordained for the very 
purpose that it should establish this doctrine between 



4/6 A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, 

ail men upon the face of the earth. Establish that 
doctrine among men, keep men in faith until he obtains 
reason; help men to form a faithful will, and then help 
them to transfer their faithful will to reason, and you 
will hâve no infidel wars to fight, for infidelity will hâve 
no food to maintain itself and no ground to stand upon, 
it will die of starvation and will remove from among 
you, for it will hâve no ground to place its dead body 
upon. That doctrine will bring the time of which 
prophet Isaiah speaks of in the second chapter of his 
book, which reads thus: "The words that Isaiah saw 
concerning Judah (or Jews) and Jérusalem; and it shall 
come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the 
Lord's house shall be established upon the top of the 
mountains, and it shall be exalted above ail heights, and 
ail nations shall flow to it as a stream, and many nations 
shall say: come, and let us go up to the mountain of 
the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will 
teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His path, for 
out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the word of God 
from Jérusalem; and He shall judge among the nations, 
and shall rebuke many people, and they shall beat their 
swords (faith) into plough shares, (into reason that 
plows through everything and produces everything that 
man has and knows) and their spears into pruning 
hooks. (See 'Collection of Thoughts,'page forty-seven.) 
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither 
shall they learn war any more. O, house of Jacob, 
come ye, and let us walk in (the light of reason, which is) 
the Hght of the Lord." 

We think that it is due to the importance of the 
subject and to the public as well as to us, to say, before 



OR KEY TO SCRIPTURE. 477 

we put away our pen and lock up our thoughts, that we 
anticipate and désire cirticism; we will, so long as it 
will please God to keep our soûl and body together, 
either answer or explain any and ail objections and 
questions which may be brought against or arise from 
our "Collection of Thoughts;" but whatever the object- 
ions raised or questions asked may be, must be founded 
upon the Bible, history, facts and Christianity itself, 
which are the grounds upon which we hâve planted our 
"Thoughts" and on which reason had engrafted her 
ideas, and thèse grounds hâve produced our conclusions. 

We do not désire nor invite criticism based on sec- 
tarian theology, or what this, that, or the other 
commentator, or sect of commentators hâve said.or 
believed about this or that part of the Bible, because 
that would compel us to write another work and name 
it "Confusion of Sectarian theology," or "Studying the 
Bible for Professional Purposes," which, for several 
reasons, we are not at ail anxious to undertake. First: 
we dislike to criticise a work whose author is dead. 
Secondly: we would reproduce a great deal of seed of 
infidelity — and for other good reasons; we say to the 
objector to our "Collection of Thoughts," that his ob- 
jection must be such that it should be able to combat 
against the Bible itself, reason, History, facts and 
Christianity as it is now. 

We will now end the fîrst part of our "Collection of 
Thoughts," and will, by the help of God, produce our 
second part or sequel, out of the seed we may obtain 
from this — In which we will amalgamate our seed 
(thoughts) with what we ask of and hope we will obtaia 
from our friends — the faithful lover s of the Bible, 



~ ;: ..i ' a the BooKkeeper process. 
eutrallzing agent: Magnésium Oxide 
reatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOH 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Orive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
f724W79-2i1i 



*^ 







